Case Citation: A24019507 | Decision Year: 2024 | Judge: L. B. Cryan

A veteran lost part of his small intestine in a 2004 surgery. He had already lost part of his large intestine in a 2000 surgery for diverticulitis. His gallbladder was removed. He developed GERD with Barrett's esophagus. He has alternating constipation and diarrhea, abdominal distention, sleep disturbance from acid reflux, and a partial bowel obstruction that put him in the hospital in May 2018. His private doctor described him as living in "a constant state of gastrointestinal distress of varying degrees."

He has a 40 percent rating for all of it, combined into a single evaluation.

He appealed for 60 percent. The Board denied him. The reason the Board denied him has almost nothing to do with how sick he is. It has to do with a single word in a single diagnostic code, and how that word is defined in a separate regulation that most veterans have never read.

The Hook

This is a case about the cliff between 40 percent and 60 percent under Diagnostic Code 7328, which rates resection of the small intestine. The 40 percent rating requires "definite interference with absorption and nutrition, manifested by impairment of health objectively supported by examination findings including definite weight loss." The 60 percent rating requires "marked interference with absorption and nutrition, manifested by severe impairment of health objectively supported by examination findings including material weight loss."

Read those two criteria carefully. They are not measuring the same thing as the symptoms a veteran with severe GI disease actually experiences day to day. They are not measuring pain. They are not measuring frequency of diarrhea. They are not measuring functional impact on work. They are measuring one thing: whether the resection has impaired the body's ability to absorb nutrition badly enough to produce objective, documented weight loss.

This veteran has every symptom you would expect from someone with multiple bowel resections, gallbladder removal, GERD, and chronic diarrhea. What he does not have, anywhere in his record, is documented weight loss. The March 2018 VA examination affirmatively says no weight loss, no malnutrition, no problems with general health. The April 2019 VA examination says the same. His November 2018 primary care note says his symptoms were improved.

That is the whole case. The Board denied because the rating criteria are about a specific physiological finding (impaired absorption producing weight loss), and the record contains affirmative findings that this physiological event has not occurred.

For veterans rating under the digestive section, this is one of the most important lessons in the entire schedule. The diagnostic codes measure things that are often disconnected from how miserable you feel. You can be miserable, debilitated, missing work, and still rated correctly at the percentage VA has assigned, because the code is looking for a specific finding you do not have.

What Happened (The Quick Version)

  • Service: Army National Guard with active duty training October 1987 to May 1988, active duty November 1990 to May 1991. Air National Guard with multiple periods of federal active duty between September 2001 and September 2012.
  • Conditions claimed: Intestinal adhesions with resection of large intestine, diverticulitis, GERD, cholecystectomy, and chronic diarrhea. All combined into a single rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.114.
  • Surgical history: Resection of large intestine in 2000 due to diverticulitis. Appendectomy in 2000. Resection of small intestine in 2004 due to lysis of adhesions. Gallbladder removal. May 2018 hospitalization for partial bowel obstruction treated conservatively.
  • Current rating: 40 percent under Diagnostic Code 7328 from January 18, 2016. Separate 10 percent rating for painful surgical scarring under Diagnostic Code 7804.
  • Period on appeal: January 18, 2016 to August 23, 2019.
  • What he asked for: Separate ratings for each digestive condition, and a higher rating overall.
  • C&P exams: Three. March 2018 for intestinal conditions, esophageal conditions, and intestinal surgery. April 2019 for chronic diarrhea. All found adequate by the Board.
  • Key findings on the exams: No weight loss. No malnutrition. No interference with absorption and nutrition. Symptoms characterized as moderate.
  • Board outcome: Denied. Single 40 percent rating sustained. No staged rating warranted. No separate ratings warranted because of the pyramiding prohibition in 38 C.F.R. § 4.114.

Why This Matters to You

If you have a digestive system rating and you've been thinking about appealing for a higher percentage, this case is the one to read before you file. The digestive rating schedule does something that the musculoskeletal schedule and the mental health schedule do not do: it forces multiple coexisting conditions into one rating, and it measures severity by physiological findings that may not match how you actually feel. What you'll walk away with is a clear picture of when an appeal is worth filing and when it isn't, because the answer turns on what's in your exam reports, not on how bad your symptoms are.

Why This Case Matters

  • The pyramiding rule under 38 C.F.R. § 4.114 is absolute for digestive conditions. You cannot get separate ratings for GERD, diverticulitis, intestinal adhesions, and chronic diarrhea. They all combine into one. The only question is which diagnostic code best fits the predominant disability picture.
  • Diagnostic Code 7328 turns on absorption and nutrition, not on symptom severity. A veteran with debilitating symptoms but no documented weight loss will stay at 40 percent. A veteran with milder symptoms but documented material weight loss could qualify for 60 percent.
  • VA examiner findings about weight, malnutrition, and general health are dispositive. When the examiner writes "no weight loss" and "no malnutrition," that finding is what the Board uses, regardless of what the lay statements or treating physician letters say about subjective distress.
  • Functional impact on work is not the rating standard for Code 7328. Missing work, dietary restriction, and embarrassment in group settings are real harms, but they do not move the needle from 40 to 60 percent under this code.

What the Board Said

On the rating criteria for Diagnostic Code 7328:

Under diagnostic Code 7328, for resection of small intestine, a 40 percent disability rating is warranted for resection with definite interference with absorption and nutrition, manifested by impairment of health objectively supported by examination findings including definite weight loss. The next higher 60 percent rating is warranted for resection with marked interference with absorption and nutrition, manifested by severe impairment of health objectively supported by examination findings including material weight loss.

The whole case fits in those two sentences. The 40 percent rating is for "definite" interference with "definite" weight loss. The 60 percent rating is for "marked" interference with "material" weight loss. The veteran needs material weight loss. He has none.

On what the evidence actually showed:

The Veteran's service-connected intestinal adhesions with resection of large intestine, diverticulitis, GERD, cholecystectomy and chronic diarrhea manifests in symptoms including moderate alternating diarrhea and constipation, abdominal distension, frequent episodes of bowel disturbance with abdominal distress, persistent recurrent epigastric distress, pyrosis, substernal/arm/shoulder pain, and pulling pain on attempting work or aggravated by movement of the body. Notably, the evidence does not show interference with absorption and nutrition. There is also no showing of severe impairment of health objectively supported by examination including material weight loss.

That paragraph is the entire denial in one breath. The first sentence acknowledges a long list of real symptoms. The second sentence flips the analysis to what is missing. The third sentence drops the hammer.

On the contradiction between the treating physician letters and the contemporaneous treatment records:

The January 2016 letter from Dr. G.B. indicates that the Veteran is required to modify his diet to reduce further symptoms, and may require further surgery. A December 2016 letter from Dr. G.B. indicates that the Veteran misses time off work due to GI events and is in a constant state of GI distress of varying degrees. First, this is contradicted by the existing treatment records. The November 2018 VA treatment note does not show that the Veteran has constant distress, and instead indicates that his symptoms were improved.

Watch what the Board is doing here. The treating physician wrote a strong letter. The Board did not call it incompetent or biased. It just compared the letter to the VA treatment note from roughly the same period and pointed out that the contemporaneous treatment note describes improved symptoms. When two pieces of evidence in your file say different things, the Board picks the one created at the time of treatment, not the one created for the appeal.

On the pyramiding rule that forced everything into a single rating:

The regulations governing the digestive system ratings make clear that ratings under diagnostic codes 7301 to 7329, inclusive, 7331, 7342, and 7345 to 7358, inclusive may not be combined with each other. A single evaluation will be assigned under the diagnostic code which reflects the predominant disability picture, with elevation to the next higher evaluation where the severity of the overall disability so warrants.

This is the rule that blocked the veteran's request for separate ratings on each condition. GERD, diverticulitis, adhesions, chronic diarrhea, cholecystectomy. All of them fall inside the 7301-7329 range or are otherwise covered by the pyramiding prohibition. One rating. Whichever code captures the predominant disability picture.

The First Precedent: Jones v. Shinseki (2012). No Ameliorative Effects of Medication

Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56 (2012) stands for the rule that when the rating criteria do not specifically account for the effects of medication, the Board cannot consider medication's ameliorative effects in determining the rating. In plain English: if you take a medication that controls your symptoms, the Board has to rate you based on what your symptoms would be without the medication, unless the diagnostic code itself says otherwise.

The Board cited Jones in this decision but did not get to apply it meaningfully, because the April 2019 examiner specifically noted that no continuous medication was required for the chronic diarrhea. There was nothing to back out. If the veteran had been on a regular PPI for the GERD or a regular antidiarrheal regimen, Jones would have required the Board to evaluate his symptoms as if he were not taking those medications.

The lesson for you: if you are on medication that controls your digestive symptoms, make sure your C&P examiner documents what your symptoms are like off medication, or what they would be without it. The exam form often does not prompt this. You may need to volunteer it. "When I am not on this medication, my symptoms are X."

The Second Precedent: Tatum v. Shinseki (2009). The Rating Criteria Are Not Successive

Tatum v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 152, 155 (2009) holds that the rating criteria for a given disability are not necessarily cumulative or successive. Some rating schedules build up (a higher rating requires everything from the lower rating plus more). Others are written as discrete pictures (the higher rating requires a specific set of findings that may not include every element of the lower rating).

For Diagnostic Code 7328, the criteria are not successive. The 60 percent rating requires "marked interference with absorption and nutrition" with "material weight loss." Those are specific findings. A veteran does not get to 60 percent by accumulating more symptoms on top of the 40 percent criteria. He gets to 60 percent by meeting the absorption and weight-loss findings.

This matters because veterans often appeal on a "more symptoms" theory. "I have more bowel disturbance now. I have more abdominal pain. I miss more work." Under a successive rating schedule, that argument can work. Under Tatum, applied to Code 7328, it does not. The criteria are about specific physiological findings, and those findings either exist on the record or they do not.

The Third Precedent: Hart v. Mansfield (2007) and Fenderson v. West (1999). Staged Ratings

Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) and Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999) together establish the staged rating doctrine. The Board has to consider whether the evidence shows that a claimed disability manifested at different severity levels during different time periods within the appeal, and award different ratings for those distinct periods if warranted.

In this case, the Board considered staged ratings and concluded none were warranted. The symptoms across the period from January 2016 to August 2019 were broadly consistent. No weight loss at any point. Moderate symptoms throughout. No period where the 60 percent criteria were met even briefly.

The lesson for you: if your symptoms have varied substantially over the appeal period (a few months of severe symptoms followed by stabilization, or a steady worsening), Hart and Fenderson require the Board to consider whether different ratings should apply to different windows. If your record shows a documented spike during a specific timeframe, point to it. Staged ratings can sometimes capture value that a single rating misses.

The Fourth Precedent: Doucette v. Shulkin (2017). When Symptoms Aren't in the Schedule

Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) addresses what happens when a veteran has symptoms that are not specifically listed in the rating schedule. The general rule is that if a symptom is not contemplated by the schedule, the Board may need to consider whether referral for extraschedular consideration is appropriate.

This case is a good illustration of why Doucette did not help. The veteran's symptoms (alternating diarrhea and constipation, abdominal pain, GERD symptoms, sleep disturbance from reflux, functional impact at work) are all symptoms the digestive section of the rating schedule does contemplate. They just are not weighted the way a veteran with those symptoms might expect. The rating schedule for Code 7328 is built around absorption and nutrition. Other symptoms are part of the disability picture but do not by themselves push the rating higher.

The Five Reasons the Board Denied, In Detail

Most case breakdowns I write focus on examiner failures, missing rationale, or development errors. This case does not have any of those. The Board found the C&P exams adequate. The duty to assist was satisfied. The legal framework was applied correctly. The denial is on the merits.

Here are the five specific reasons the Board denied a higher rating:

  • No documented weight loss on any exam. The March 2018 examiner specifically found no weight loss attributable to the intestinal condition. The April 2019 examiner specifically found no weight loss for chronic diarrhea. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.112, "material weight loss" is defined as part of a sliding scale tied to baseline weight. With zero weight loss in the record, the analysis ends before it begins.
  • No documented interference with absorption and nutrition. The March 2018 intestinal surgery examination affirmatively states no interference with absorption and nutrition. This is the threshold finding for Code 7328 at the 60 percent level, and the examiner found it absent.
  • No malnutrition. The exams specifically screened for malnutrition and found none. Malnutrition is the most direct objective indicator of impaired absorption, and its absence undermines any argument that absorption is markedly impaired.
  • The November 2018 VA treatment note contradicted the treating physician letters. Dr. G.B.'s letters described constant GI distress and frequent missed work. The November 2018 primary care note from the same general timeframe described improved symptoms. The Board credited the contemporaneous treatment record over the appeal-period letters.
  • The pyramiding rule under 38 C.F.R. § 4.114 blocked separate ratings. Even if each condition were rated independently, the predominant-disability rule would force a single evaluation. The veteran's argument for separate ratings was foreclosed by the regulation itself, not by the facts.

The remand instructions are nonexistent because this is not a remand. The Board reviewed the file, applied the rating criteria, and concluded the evidence does not support a higher rating. There is no procedural error to fix.

That is a hard finding for a veteran to read. There is nothing wrong with the development of the claim. The claim was developed correctly, examined adequately, and denied on the merits because the rating criteria require specific findings that the record does not contain.

A grounded reset before the lessons

Everything above is what happened in one veteran's appeal. Here's what it means for you, in your file, if you have a digestive rating or are about to file for one.

Lesson #1: Diagnostic Code 7328 Is About Absorption, Not Symptoms

The single most important thing to understand about Diagnostic Code 7328 is that it does not measure suffering. It measures whether your bowel resection has impaired absorption of nutrients badly enough to produce objective findings of impaired health, including documented weight loss.

You can have severe alternating diarrhea and constipation. You can have abdominal pain. You can have frequent episodes of bowel disturbance. You can miss work because of GI events. None of that, by itself, gets you to the 60 percent rating under Code 7328. The criteria are looking for absorption findings, nutrition findings, and weight loss.

If you are pursuing a higher rating under Code 7328, your C&P exam needs to address absorption directly. That means weight history (with baseline weight from the two years before disease onset, per 38 C.F.R. § 4.112), current weight, BMI trend, lab work showing nutritional status (albumin, prealbumin, vitamin levels, iron studies), and the examiner's specific opinion on whether absorption is impaired.

If your exam report says "no weight loss" and "no malnutrition," and that finding is wrong, you need objective documentation in your file before the appeal that proves otherwise. Weight measurements over time from your primary care visits. Lab work showing low albumin or vitamin deficiencies. A nutritionist's evaluation. Without that documentation, the examiner's negative finding becomes dispositive.

Lesson #2: The Pyramiding Rule Blocks the "Separate Ratings" Argument

A common veteran argument in digestive cases is "I have GERD and diverticulitis and chronic diarrhea, so I should get a separate rating for each one." 38 C.F.R. § 4.114 blocks this argument. The diagnostic codes between 7301 and 7329 (which covers most of the digestive section) cannot be combined with each other. You get one rating under the code that captures the predominant disability picture.

This is not a quirk of how this Board handled this case. It is a regulation. Every Board would apply it the same way. If your strategy depends on getting separate ratings for each digestive condition, the strategy will not work.

What can work: identifying which code, applied to your predominant disability, would actually produce a higher rating than the one you currently have. If you are rated under Code 7328 at 40 percent for resection, but your predominant symptoms are actually GERD with all of the elements of a higher Code 7346 rating, ask the RO to consider whether 7346 is the better-fitting code. The pyramiding rule blocks combinations; it does not lock you into a specific code if a different code produces a higher rating for the predominant picture.

Lesson #3: Treating Physician Letters Lose to Contemporaneous Treatment Notes

This case is a clear example of the most common evidence problem I see in BVA decisions. A treating physician writes a strong letter for the appeal. The letter describes severe symptoms, constant distress, frequent missed work. The Board then compares the letter to the treatment notes from the same physician or facility around the same time, and the treatment notes describe a different (often milder) clinical picture.

When that happens, the Board credits the treatment note over the letter. The reasoning is not that the doctor is lying. It is that contemporaneous treatment notes are created for clinical purposes with no incentive to characterize symptoms in any particular way, while appeal letters are created at the veteran's request specifically to support the claim. The Board treats the treatment note as more reliable evidence of what was actually happening at the time.

The practical implication: if you are asking your treating physician to write a supporting letter, ask them to anchor the letter to specific clinical observations from specific visit dates. "On the visit of [date], the patient reported X. On the visit of [date], the patient required Y." That way, if a comparison is made, the letter is consistent with the underlying record rather than contradicted by it.

If your treatment notes do not actually reflect the severity you experience, the time to fix that is during clinical visits, not after the denial. Tell your provider how you are actually feeling. Ask them to document the symptoms specifically. If you only report your worst symptoms during appeal-letter requests but report mild symptoms at routine visits, the record will look exactly like this veteran's record.

Lesson #4: The Definitions in 38 C.F.R. § 4.112 Matter

When Code 7328 says "material weight loss," the term has a defined meaning. 38 C.F.R. § 4.112 says "substantial weight loss" means a loss of greater than 20 percent of baseline weight sustained for three months or longer. "Minor weight loss" means 10 to 20 percent of baseline. "Baseline weight" is the average weight for the two years preceding onset of the disease.

The Board did not have to apply these definitions in this case, because the veteran had no weight loss at all. But if you are anywhere near the rating threshold, the math matters. Pull your weight history from before the digestive disease developed. Calculate the average across the two-year baseline window. Compare to your current weight. Calculate the percentage change. Document how long the lower weight has been sustained.

If you have a 12 percent weight loss sustained over four months, you have "minor weight loss" under the regulation. If you have a 23 percent weight loss sustained over six months, you have "substantial weight loss." These specific terms matter when the diagnostic code uses them. The examiner may not know the regulatory definitions. You can supply the numbers and let the examiner check the math.

Lesson #5: Functional Impact at Work Is Not the Rating Standard Here

Several pieces of evidence in this file describe how the veteran's GI symptoms affect his work. He works security at a power plant. He has worked at a prison for twenty years. Symptoms affect his ability to focus, impair his physical activities, and cause social embarrassment in group settings. He needs close proximity to restrooms.

All of that is real. None of it changed the rating.

Code 7328 is not a functional-impact code. It is an absorption-and-nutrition code. The functional impact would matter under a TDIU analysis, where the question is whether the veteran can secure and follow substantially gainful employment. But for the schedular rating under 7328, the question is what the exam findings show about absorption and weight.

If you are pursuing a higher schedular rating, focus your evidence development on the elements the code actually measures. If you are pursuing TDIU, develop the functional-impact evidence in detail and direct it at employability. These are different fights and they need different evidence.

Lesson #6: An Adequate C&P Exam Is Not the Same as a Favorable One

The Board found all three of this veteran's C&P exams adequate. No reason to remand. No reason to question the examiner's qualifications or methodology. The exams complied with the duty to assist.

That finding is fatal to a lot of appeal strategies that depend on attacking the exam. If the exam is adequate but the findings go against you, the exam is not the problem. The problem is what the findings show. The Board will rely on those findings even if you disagree with them.

The time to influence the exam is during the exam. Bring documentation. Bring a written symptom diary if your symptoms vary day to day. Bring your weight history. Bring lab work. Describe your worst day, not your best day, and ask the examiner to document the variability. If the examiner only documents the snapshot of how you present at the appointment, and you happen to present mildly that day, that snapshot becomes the record.

One more grounded reset before the action steps

If you have a digestive rating sitting at a percentage you think is too low, the next part is what matters. Not the case law. The list of things to do this week.

What If This Was You

If you have a current digestive rating under Code 7328 (or a related code in the 7301-7329 range) and you are considering an appeal for a higher rating, here is the order of operations.

  1. Pull your current rating decision. Identify exactly which diagnostic code is being used and which percentage you are at. Read the criteria for that code and the next higher code. Identify the specific findings that separate the two.
  2. For Code 7328 specifically, audit your weight history. Get records of your weight at every primary care visit going back to before your digestive disease developed. Calculate your two-year baseline. Calculate your current weight as a percentage of baseline. If you have material weight loss (a meaningful percentage drop sustained for three months or more), that's evidence you need front and center.
  3. Audit your nutrition labs. If you have low albumin, low prealbumin, vitamin B12 deficiency, iron deficiency anemia, or other markers of malabsorption, gather those results. Objective lab evidence of impaired nutrition is the strongest evidence for the 60 percent finding.
  4. Read your most recent C&P exam carefully. Find the specific lines about weight loss, malnutrition, interference with absorption and nutrition, and general health effects. If those lines all say "no," your appeal needs to explain why those findings are wrong, with objective evidence.
  5. Check your treatment notes for consistency. If your treating physician writes a letter for the appeal, the letter should be anchored to specific clinical observations that appear in the contemporaneous treatment notes. If the letter contradicts the notes, the notes will win.
  6. Consider whether a different code fits your predominant disability better. If your predominant symptoms are actually GERD-driven rather than resection-driven, Code 7346 might be a better fit. If chronic diarrhea is your predominant symptom, look at the codes that specifically address it. The pyramiding rule means you get one code; pick the one that produces the highest rating for your predominant picture.
  7. If your symptoms have varied substantially during the appeal period, raise staged ratings. Identify the specific windows when symptoms were worse and the windows when they were better. Document the variability.
  8. If your real problem is employability, file separately for TDIU. The schedular rating and TDIU are different fights with different standards. Functional impact on work is the TDIU question, not the schedular question.

What the Data Can't Tell Me

I want to be careful about what this single decision proves and what it does not.

I don't have this veteran's full medical record. I have the Board's summary of three C&P examinations, several private physician letters, and a handful of VA treatment notes. The Board sometimes characterizes records in ways that the records themselves might support more nuanced readings of. I'm taking Judge Cryan's description of the evidence at face value.

I also don't know what was actually said during the C&P examinations. The exam reports document "no weight loss" and "no malnutrition," but I don't know whether the examiner ran lab work, reviewed the full weight history from baseline, or simply asked the veteran during the exam. The exam findings can be technically accurate but incomplete, and an appeal that develops the missing dimension can sometimes change the outcome even when the exams were found adequate on the record.

And I can't tell you whether your situation matches this veteran's closely enough to expect the same outcome. The 40-to-60 cliff under Code 7328 is a specific feature of one diagnostic code. Other digestive codes have different structures. Other rating sections (musculoskeletal, mental health, neurological) have entirely different logics. The specific lesson here about absorption findings does not generalize across the whole schedule.

Bottom Line

The central lesson of BVA A24019507 is that the digestive rating schedule measures specific physiological findings, not the global severity of how a veteran feels day to day. Diagnostic Code 7328 is built around absorption, nutrition, and weight loss. A veteran with severe symptoms but no documented absorption deficit will sit at 40 percent. A veteran with milder symptoms but documented material weight loss can reach 60 percent.

The same logic applies in different forms across the digestive section. Each code measures specific findings. The pyramiding rule under 38 C.F.R. § 4.114 forces multiple conditions into a single rating. The criteria are often not successive, meaning more symptoms do not necessarily add up to a higher rating.

For this veteran, the appeal was not lost because of bad development or bad exams. It was lost because the rating criteria require findings that his record does not contain. The path forward, if there is one, is to develop objective evidence of impaired absorption and weight loss through lab work, weight history documentation, and nutritional assessment, and to file a supplemental claim with that new evidence.

If you have a digestive rating and you've been frustrated that your day-to-day suffering does not seem to be reflected in your percentage, this is why. The schedule is not measuring what you might assume it's measuring. Once you understand what it actually measures, you can either build the case for a higher rating along those specific axes, or accept that the percentage you have is what the schedule produces for the findings in your file.

Methodology and Limitations

  • Data source: Claim Raven's analysis of BVA citation A24019507, a single Board of Veterans' Appeals decision dated April 18, 2024, written by Veterans Law Judge L. B. Cryan.
  • Verbatim quotes: All blockquoted passages come from the structured key_quotes field of the decision and from the verbatim findings in the Board's order. I have not paraphrased the Board's reasoning.
  • Single-case limitations: This is a one-case breakdown. Where I reference broader patterns, those patterns come from Claim Raven's larger dataset of 101,518 condition records drawn from the analyzed subset of Claim Raven's 501,000+ Board-decision library. Individual case outcomes vary substantially and cannot be predicted from aggregate data alone.

Disclaimer

I'm not accredited by VA, not a lawyer, not a VSO. This is data analysis, not claim advice. These are patterns from cases that made it to the BVA, they don't predict individual outcomes. If you need help with your claim, work with an accredited representative.

Where to go next

  • Diagnostic Code 7328 Explained: Absorption, Nutrition, and the 60 Percent Cliff
  • The Pyramiding Rule for Digestive Conditions: One Rating, Multiple Diagnoses
  • Treating Physician Letters vs. Contemporaneous Treatment Notes
  • Schedular Ratings vs. TDIU: Different Fights, Different Evidence

-Landon Founder, Claim Raven | U.S. Army Veteran