Sharp v. Shulkin
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
29 Vet. App. 26 (2017)

- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Bobby R. Sharp (plaintiff) served in the US Army. Fifty years later, Sharp filed an application for service-connected disability for arthritis and bursitis. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) regional office granted a service connection for arthritis in both shoulders at 10 percent disability each. Sharp was also granted service connection for bilateral hand, elbow, and forearm conditions without compensation. Sharp appealed the 10 percent evaluation to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board remanded the claim for a new VA medical examination. The examiner noted that Sharp reported functional loss during flareups including significant pain, loss of endurance and grip strength, and a decrease in fine motor skills. The examination report stated that the examiner could not properly evaluate the Sharp’s functional loss during flareup as the evaluation did not occur during a flareup. Per the information provided in the report, the examiner did not elicit information about the severity, duration, or effects of flareups from Sharp. The board granted an evaluation of slightly over 10 percent for the bilateral hand and forearm conditions but did not increase the 10 percent evaluation for Sharp’s elbows. Sharp appealed, claiming that under the relevant precedent, the examiner was required to estimate the amount of additional functional loss during flareups.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bartley, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.