Case Citation: 25001106 | Decision Year: 2025 | Judge: Michelle L. Kane

Do buddy letters help VA claims? Or, more precisely, does a veteran's own sworn account of what a disability actually does to him carry any weight when the medical exam says his numbers aren't bad enough? Here is a case where the range-of-motion measurements did not support a higher rating, the examiner flat-out refused to estimate flare-up loss, and the veteran still walked away with a 20 percent rating on appeal.

He got there on the strength of his testimony. Not a new exam. Not a specialist opinion. His own credible description of what his ankle does when it locks up once or twice a week.

I want to walk through this one carefully, because it answers a question I see veterans ask constantly: how much weight do lay statements actually carry, and can they win a rating when the objective numbers fall short. In BVA 25001106, the answer is unambiguous. They can, and they did.

The Hook

This veteran served on active duty from October 2008 to June 2009. He had a service-connected right ankle disability, status post fractured right ankle with residuals, rated at 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5271. He wanted more, and he had good reason to.

The problem was the objective measurements. When the August 2022 VA examiner measured his ankle, plantar flexion came in at 35 degrees and dorsiflexion at 15 degrees. Under Diagnostic Code 5271, a 20 percent rating requires "marked" limitation of motion, which the regulation now defines as less than 5 degrees dorsiflexion or less than 10 degrees plantar flexion. His numbers were nowhere near that threshold. On the raw range-of-motion data alone, he was a 10 percent case, full stop.

This claim had already been through the wringer. The Board remanded it once in August 2022, then denied it in a December 2022 decision. The veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In a February 2024 Memorandum Decision, the Court set aside the Board's denial and sent it back. The veteran then asked for a new hearing, testified again in November 2024, and the case landed in front of Veterans Law Judge Michelle L. Kane.

At that November 2024 hearing, the veteran did something specific and effective. He described his flare-ups in concrete, first-person terms. He testified that during a flare-up he cannot put full weight on his ankle, that his ankle "will lock up to point where he cannot even use the foot," and that this happens once or twice a week. The August 2022 examiner had already stated on the record that he could not reliably estimate range-of-motion loss during a flare-up. That combination is the whole case: an examiner who could not measure the flare-ups, and a veteran whose credible testimony filled the gap.

Judge Kane granted 20 percent for the entire period on appeal. Not a remand. A grant. On the basis of lay testimony resolving reasonable doubt.

What Happened (The Quick Version)

  • Service: Active duty from October 2008 to June 2009.
  • Condition at issue: Service-connected status post fractured right ankle with residuals, rated under Diagnostic Code 5271. The veteran also referenced knee and hip pain, but the appeal centered on the ankle rating.
  • Starting rating: 10 percent, continued in a July 2017 rating decision under Diagnostic Codes 5003-5271.
  • Procedural history: One prior remand (August 2022), one prior Board denial (December 2022), a successful appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (February 2024 Memorandum Decision setting aside the denial), a new hearing requested in June 2024, and a second Board hearing in November 2024.
  • The objective measurements: August 2022 VA exam showed plantar flexion at 35 degrees, dorsiflexion at 15 degrees, no additional loss on repetition. July 2017 exam was essentially the same. Neither met the "marked" limitation threshold on paper.
  • The examiner's key admission: The August 2022 examiner stated he could not reliably estimate range-of-motion loss during flare-ups or after repetitive use.
  • The lay evidence: The veteran testified to flare-ups once or twice per week involving swelling, locking, and an inability to bear full weight, plus a June 2024 statement describing debilitating flare-ups and work accommodations.
  • Board outcome (January 2025): 20 percent granted, and no higher, for the entire period on appeal. This is the maximum available under Diagnostic Code 5271.
  • Connection theory: Not at issue. This was a rating increase on an already service-connected disability (direct service connection).
  • What carried it: Lay evidence. The Board found the veteran's flare-up testimony credible and resolved reasonable doubt in his favor.

Why This Matters to You

If you are fighting a rating increase and your C&P exam came back with numbers that don't quite hit the next tier, you have probably wondered whether your own account of your bad days counts for anything. This case is the answer to that question. What you'll walk away with is a clear picture of exactly when your testimony can bridge the gap between what the exam measured on a good day and what your disability actually does during a flare-up, and how to give that testimony in a way the Board can use.

Why This Case Matters

  • Lay testimony can win a rating when the objective numbers fall short. The measured range of motion here supported only 10 percent. The veteran's credible flare-up testimony got him to 20. That is the single most important lesson in this decision.
  • An examiner's inability to estimate flare-ups is not automatically fatal to your claim. Here it cut the other way. Because the examiner admitted he could not estimate flare-up loss, there was a genuine evidentiary gap, and the Board filled it with the veteran's credible account rather than remanding for another exam that would produce the same answer.
  • Credibility is the whole ballgame for lay evidence. The Board said the veteran was competent to report his symptoms and that it found him credible. Those two findings, competence and credibility, are what turned his words into evidence that could move a rating.
  • Reasonable doubt is a live tool, not a formality. With the objective evidence against a higher rating and the credible lay evidence supporting it, the Board treated the record as in equipoise on the flare-up question and resolved it in the veteran's favor.

What the Board Said

On the winning argument, here is the sentence that produced the grant:

Therefore, as the August 2022 VA examiner was unable to estimate the Veteran's limitation of motion during a flare up, and the undersigned finds the Veteran reports regarding the severity of his symptoms during a flare up to be credible, the Board will resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and increase the evaluation assigned to this disability to 20 percent on the basis of marked limitation of motion during flare ups once to twice per week for the entire period of time on appeal.

That is the entire case in one sentence.

Read the structure of it. The examiner could not measure the flare-ups. The veteran's account of the flare-ups was credible. Reasonable doubt goes to the veteran. Twenty percent. The medical measurements never changed. What changed the outcome was that a judge believed the veteran's description of his worst days.

On the critical objective evidence, the numbers that would ordinarily hold him at 10 percent:

the Veteran's right ankle plantar flexion was noted at 35 degrees and his right ankle dorsiflexion was noted at 15 degrees in the August 2022 VA examination report

Those numbers are good. Too good, on their own, for a 20 percent rating.

Normal ankle motion is 45 degrees plantar flexion and 20 degrees dorsiflexion. This veteran was at 35 and 15. "Marked" limitation, the threshold for 20 percent, means less than 10 degrees plantar flexion or less than 5 degrees dorsiflexion. On the exam-day measurements he was not close. If this claim had turned on measured range of motion, it was a loser. It turned on something else.

On the regulatory groundwork that let the Board use the "moderate" and "marked" definitions in the first place:

The Board finds that the M21-1 may be relied upon as a factor based on VA's proposed revisions to Diagnostic Code 5271 made in February 2003 and August 2017.

That is a technical move, but it matters. The older version of Diagnostic Code 5271 never defined "moderate" or "marked" in degrees. The Board explained why it could borrow the M21-1 manual's degree definitions as a persuasive factor. That is what gave "marked limitation during flare-ups" a concrete meaning the Board could then apply to the veteran's testimony.

The First Precedent: DeLuca v. Brown (1995). Pain and Flare-Ups Count Beyond the Range-of-Motion Numbers

DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995) is the case that tells VA it cannot rate a musculoskeletal disability on the range-of-motion measurements alone. When a veteran has additional functional loss due to pain, weakness, excess fatigability, or incoordination, especially during flare-ups or with repeated use, VA has to account for that functional loss in the rating.

In plain English: your exam-day numbers are a snapshot, not the whole picture. If your joint gets dramatically worse when it flares, the rating is supposed to reflect that worse state, not just the calm-day measurement.

This is the doctrinal spine of BVA 25001106. The measured motion (35 and 15 degrees) put the veteran at 10 percent. DeLuca is what made the flare-ups legally relevant at all. Without DeLuca, the Board would have stopped at the exam-day numbers and denied. With DeLuca, the question became: what does this ankle do when it flares, and does that reach "marked" limitation. The answer, drawn from the veteran's testimony, was yes.

The Second Precedent: Mitchell v. Shinseki (2011). Functional Loss, Not Just Pain, Is What Gets Rated

Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011) refined DeLuca. It clarified that pain by itself does not warrant a higher rating unless the pain actually causes functional loss. The point is not that the joint hurts. The point is that the pain limits what the joint can do.

That distinction is why this veteran's testimony was so effective. He did not just say his ankle hurts. He described a specific functional consequence: during a flare-up he cannot put full weight on the ankle, and it locks up to the point where he cannot use the foot at all. That is functional loss, not just pain. It is the difference between "my ankle is sore" and "my ankle stops working." Mitchell tells you which of those two statements moves a rating.

If you are describing your own flare-ups, remember Mitchell. Lead with what you cannot do, not just with how much it hurts.

The Third Precedent: Overton v. Wilkie (2018). The Board Has to Show Its Work Before Relying on the M21-1 Manual

Overton v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 257 (2018) holds that the M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual is not binding on the Board. If the Board wants to rely on M21-1 guidance as a factor supporting its decision, it has to conduct its own independent analysis first.

That is exactly what Judge Kane did here. The M21-1 supplies the degree definitions of "moderate" (less than 15 degrees dorsiflexion or less than 30 degrees plantar flexion) and "marked" (less than 5 degrees dorsiflexion or less than 10 degrees plantar flexion) for the old version of Diagnostic Code 5271. Before leaning on those definitions, the Board walked through VA's 2003 and 2017 proposed rulemakings, noted that they were developed with non-VA specialists, and explained why those definitions were persuasive. That independent analysis is what Overton requires.

Why should you care about a manual-reliance rule? Because it is what gave "marked limitation" a numerical meaning the veteran's flare-up testimony could then satisfy. Without a defined threshold, "marked" is a vague adjective. With one, the veteran's account of near-total loss of function during a flare-up had something concrete to be measured against.

What Went Right: The Lay Testimony Filled a Gap the Exam Left Open

Most of my case breakdowns walk through examiner failures. This one is the opposite. The Board actually found the August 2022 exam adequate, and it explained at length why. But the win still came from lay evidence, and the reason is worth laying out in detail.

Here is the sequence that produced the grant.

  • The exam measured calm-day motion accurately. Plantar flexion 35, dorsiflexion 15. No additional loss on repetition. The Board accepted these numbers as reliable. This is why the exam was found adequate: the examiner examined the veteran thoroughly and recorded what he found.
  • The examiner honestly admitted the limit of what he could measure. He stated he could not reliably determine range-of-motion loss during a flare-up, noting that the medical records did not document prior flare-ups with measured motion loss and that general medical knowledge was insufficient to estimate the loss given the variability between patients. The Board found this a legitimate explanation, not a deficiency.
  • That admission created an evidentiary gap. The record had good calm-day numbers and no measured flare-up numbers. On the flare-up question specifically, the objective evidence was silent.
  • The veteran filled the gap with credible testimony. He described flare-ups once or twice per week, with swelling, locking, and an inability to bear full weight, escalating to the point where he could not use the foot. The Board found him competent to report these symptoms and credible in his account.
  • Reasonable doubt broke in his favor. With no objective flare-up data cutting against him and credible lay evidence supporting marked limitation during flares, the Board resolved the doubt for the veteran and granted 20 percent.

Notice what did not happen. The Board did not remand for a new exam. It specifically found that remanding "would not yield additional information regarding the current severity of his disability or would allow an examiner to render an accurate estimation of range of motion during a flare up." In other words, another exam would just produce the same "cannot estimate" answer. So instead of chasing a measurement that could not be taken, the Board used the evidence it had: the veteran's own account.

One more detail worth flagging. The veteran had argued that the examiner should have been able to estimate flare-up loss and that this failure made the exam inadequate. The Board disagreed, holding the exam adequate. That is a loss on the procedural argument. But the same fact, the examiner's inability to estimate flare-ups, turned into the veteran's best asset on the merits. It created the gap that his testimony then filled. The procedural argument failed and the substantive result succeeded, for the same underlying reason.

If your case looks anything like this one, the next part is what matters most. Not the case law. The specific way you describe your bad days.

Lesson #1: Your Credible Testimony Can Win a Rating When the Exam Numbers Fall Short

This is the headline finding, and it is the direct answer to whether lay statements help VA claims. They can win, and here they did.

The measured range of motion in this case supported 10 percent and nothing more. The veteran ended up at 20 percent. The entire difference was his testimony about flare-ups, which the Board found credible and used to establish marked limitation of motion during flares. No new exam. No specialist. No medical opinion. His words, believed by a judge, moved the rating by ten points and the corresponding money for the entire appeal period.

The mechanism matters. Lay evidence is competent for what you can personally observe: what your symptoms are, how often they happen, and what you cannot do when they happen. You do not need medical training to know that your ankle locks up and you cannot bear weight. That is observation, not diagnosis. When the Board finds that kind of testimony credible, it becomes evidence with real weight, and under DeLuca it can carry a musculoskeletal rating past what the calm-day measurements would allow.

Lesson #2: An Examiner Who Cannot Measure Your Flare-Ups Can Actually Help You

This is counterintuitive, so sit with it. Veterans usually treat "the examiner couldn't estimate my flare-up loss" as a problem. Here it was the opening.

When the examiner said he could not reliably estimate range-of-motion loss during a flare-up, he created a hole in the objective record. There were no measured flare-up numbers cutting against the veteran. That silence meant the flare-up question was wide open, and credible lay testimony was the only evidence addressing it. Under the reasonable-doubt rule, that tilted the scale toward the veteran.

Compare that to a scenario where an examiner does measure a flare-up and records, say, 30 degrees of plantar flexion during a flare. Now there is objective evidence contradicting a claim of near-total loss, and your testimony has to overcome it. The absence of a flare-up measurement is not always bad. Sometimes it is the gap your own account gets to fill.

The practical point: do not assume an "unable to estimate" note sinks your claim. Read it as an invitation to supply the missing evidence yourself, in credible, specific lay form.

Lesson #3: Describe Function, Not Just Pain, and Be Specific About Frequency

The veteran's testimony worked because it was specific in two dimensions that the rating schedule cares about: severity of functional loss and frequency.

On severity, he did not say "it hurts a lot." He said he cannot put full weight on the ankle and that it locks up to the point where he cannot use the foot. That is a description of lost function, which is what Mitchell v. Shinseki says actually gets rated. Pain that limits function is compensable; pain alone is harder to translate into a rating.

On frequency, he pinned it down: once or twice per week. That specificity let the Board write a finding it could stand behind, granting 20 percent "on the basis of marked limitation of motion during flare ups once to twice per week for the entire period of time on appeal." Vague testimony ("sometimes it acts up") is hard for a judge to convert into a durable finding. Specific testimony ("once or twice a week, and here is exactly what I cannot do") is easy to convert.

When you describe your own flare-ups, in a lay statement or at a hearing, hit both dimensions. What can't you do, and how often does it happen. Use plain, concrete language. "I cannot bear weight" beats "significant functional impairment."

Lesson #4: Consistency Between Your Testimony and the Exam Record Builds Credibility

There is a subtle piece of this decision that is easy to miss. When the Board evaluated whether the August 2022 exam was still adequate at the time of the 2024 hearing, it noted that the veteran's hearing testimony was "all essentially consistent with the information recorded in the 2022 VA examination report" and gave no indication his condition had worsened since.

That consistency did two things. It let the Board keep the 2022 exam as the objective baseline, and it reinforced the veteran's credibility. His account of a locking, swelling ankle lined up with the popping and locking he had described to the examiner and with his complaints of being unable to use stairs without pain. Nothing in his story contradicted the medical record; it filled in the one thing the record left blank.

Credibility is fragile. If your testimony conflicts with what is already in your file, a judge notices, and the whole account gets discounted. If it is consistent with the record and simply adds the detail the exam could not capture, it strengthens everything. Tell the same story to the examiner, in your statements, and at your hearing. Consistency is not just honesty. It is strategy.

Everything above is what happened to one veteran with a fractured ankle. Here is what it means for you, in your own file, this week.

What If This Was You

If you have a service-connected musculoskeletal condition and you are seeking a higher rating, and your last exam measured motion that falls short of the next tier, here is the order of operations.

  1. Pull your last C&P exam and find the flare-up section. Look for whether the examiner estimated your range-of-motion loss during flare-ups. If the examiner wrote something like "unable to estimate" or "cannot be determined without resorting to speculation," that is a gap you can fill with your own account.
  2. Read the actual rating criteria for your diagnostic code. For the ankle it is Diagnostic Code 5271 in the musculoskeletal rating schedule, where "marked" limitation means less than 5 degrees dorsiflexion or less than 10 degrees plantar flexion. Find the numeric threshold for the rating you want, so you know exactly what functional loss you need to describe.
  3. Write a lay statement about your flare-ups. Be specific on two things: how often they happen (once a week, twice a week, daily) and what you cannot do when they happen (cannot bear weight, cannot walk, cannot use stairs, have to sit down, need to immobilize the joint). Describe lost function, not just pain.
  4. Line your statement up with your medical record. Make sure the symptoms you describe match, and do not contradict, what your treatment records and prior exams already show. Consistency builds credibility. Inconsistency destroys it.
  5. Gather buddy statements if others have seen your flare-ups. A spouse, coworker, or friend who has watched your joint lock up or watched you unable to stand can corroborate your account. Corroboration reinforces credibility, which is the entire hinge of a case like this.
  6. Request a hearing if you have a live appeal. This veteran testified under oath, and the judge found him credible. A hearing gives you the chance to describe your flare-ups directly to the person deciding the case, and to answer questions that let you be specific.
  7. Frame it as reasonable doubt. When the objective evidence is silent on flare-ups and your credible account supports a higher rating, the record is at least in equipoise on that question, and the tie goes to you. Say so, or have your accredited representative say it.

What the Data Can't Tell Me

I want to be careful about the limits of what I can conclude from a single Board decision.

I don't have this veteran's actual medical records or the full transcript of his hearings. I have the Board's summary of what the exams found and what he testified to. Judge Kane characterizes his testimony as credible and specific, and I am taking that characterization at face value. If the underlying testimony was messier than the decision suggests, I would not see it from the outside.

There is also a selection effect worth naming. This is a grant, and grants that reach the Board and get written up are, almost by definition, cases where the lay evidence was strong enough to matter. The plural of "this worked once" is not "this works generally." Plenty of veterans give flare-up testimony that a judge does not find credible, or that conflicts with the record, and those cases do not produce grants like this one. Credibility is a judgment call, and I cannot predict how any individual judge will call it in your case.

Finally, the patterns I draw here 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, but this breakdown is a single case. One decision shows what is possible, not what is probable. Your outcome depends on facts I cannot see: the specific measurements in your exam, the consistency of your record, and whether the judge finds your account believable.

Bottom Line

The central lesson of BVA 25001106 is that your own credible account of what your disability does can win a rating even when the exam-day measurements say it shouldn't. This veteran's ankle measured too well for a 20 percent rating on paper. He got 20 percent anyway, because the examiner could not measure his flare-ups and the veteran described them in credible, specific, functional terms that the Board could work with.

That is the direct answer to the question so many veterans ask. Lay statements and testimony are not throwaway paperwork. When they are credible, specific, and consistent with the rest of your file, they are evidence with real weight, and under the pain-and-flare-up doctrine of DeLuca and Mitchell, they can carry a musculoskeletal rating past what the range-of-motion numbers alone would allow.

If you are seeking a rating increase and your exam came back with numbers that fall short, do not assume the fight is over. Look at whether your flare-ups were ever measured. If they weren't, that gap is yours to fill. Describe your worst days in concrete terms, tie them to lost function, be specific about how often they happen, and keep your story consistent with your record. That is exactly what this veteran did, and it moved his rating.

Methodology and Limitations

  • Data source: Claim Raven's analysis of BVA citation 25001106, a single Board of Veterans' Appeals decision dated January 28, 2025, written by Veterans Law Judge Michelle L. Kane.
  • Verbatim quotes: All blockquoted passages come from the structured key_quotes field of the decision. I have quoted the Board's reasoning, the winning-argument passage, and the critical evidence finding directly, without paraphrase.
  • Single-case limitations: This is one decision, and it is a grant. Where I reference broader patterns, those come from Claim Raven's dataset of 101,518 condition records drawn from the analyzed subset of Claim Raven's 501,000+ Board-decision library. Individual outcomes vary substantially and depend on facts, including witness credibility, that cannot be predicted from aggregate data or from a single case.

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

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