Link to original post
Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
NICHOLAS C. MAZZA, APPELLANT,
ROBERT L. WILKIE,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before FALVEY, Judge.
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
FALVEY, Judge: Army veteran Nicholas C. Mazza appeals an October 19, 2018, Board
of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied benefits for a chronic back condition, hypertension,
diverticulitis, gastrointestinal bleeding, gastrointestinal polyps, gastrointestinal hemorrhoids,
constipation, an enlarged prostate, urinary retention, anemia, high cholesterol, and residuals of a
right finger injury with slight hypoalgesia.1 This appeal is timely, the Court has jurisdiction to
review the Board’s decision, and single-judge disposition is appropriate. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a),
7266(a); Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990).
We are asked to decide whether the Board erred regarding the veteran’s right finger
disability and chronic back condition. We find that the Board erred regarding the right finger
disability because it provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases and relied on a medical
examination that did not address functional loss. As for the chronic back condition, the Board erred
1 The Board also remanded the matters of sleep apnea, a heart disorder, an acquired psychiatric disorder
including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus, hyperthyroidism, diabetic
neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, diabetic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease of the
bilateral upper and lower extremities, and erectile dysfunction. The Court lacks authority to address these nonfinal
matters. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) (Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” to review final Board decisions); Breeden v.
Principi, 17 Vet.App. 475, 478
Read the full thread below
Single Judge Application; joint disabilities; 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that "certain range of motion testing be conducted whenever possible in cases of joint disabilities." Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet.App. 158, 164, 168(2016). The regulation specifies that "[t]he joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint." 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2019). "If for some reason the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary . . . , he or she should clearly explain why that is so." Correia, 28 Vet.App. at 170;
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-1017NICHOLAS C. MAZZA, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before FALVEY, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.FALVEY, Judge: Army veteran Nicholas C. Mazza appeals an October 19, 2018, Boardof Veterans' Appeals decision that...