Southall-Norman v. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 346 (2016)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Southall-Norman v. McDonald

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
28 Vet. App. 346 (2016)

Facts

Crystal D. Southall-Norman (plaintiff) served in the US Marine Corps for seven years. In 2007, during her final year of service, Southall-Norman filed a claim for service-connected disability for both feet based on bunions that caused pain that was exacerbated by physical activity and by wearing heels. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) examiner reported tenderness in both feet but no pain related to movement and diagnosed bilateral hallux valgus, or bunions. The VA regional office granted Southall-Norman a service connection but found that it was noncompensable under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, diagnostic code (DC) 5280, the section relating to hallux valgus. Southall-Norman appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). Southall-Norman underwent an additional VA examination during which the examiner diagnosed pes planus, or flat feet, but found no additional functional loss. At the board hearing, Southall-Norman testified to experiencing constant foot pain while standing, while walking, and at rest. The board remanded for another VA examination, in which the examiner found pain on weight bearing and determined that the pes planus likely contributed to the service-connected hallux valgus. The VA regional office assigned a 50 percent disability rating under § 4.71a, DC 5276, the section related to disability for flatfoot. The disability was made effective as of 2014. Southall-Norman appealed to the board seeking an earlier effective date. The board found that the record did not support an earlier effective date. Southall-Norman appealed, arguing that § 4.59 required an award of at least minimum compensable disability prior to 2014 and that the board had erred by failing to consider § 4.59 when the record contained evidence of her foot pain when walking and standing and on weight bearing. The VA argued that, under § 4.59, an award of minimum compensable disability was required only if there were limitations in range of motion.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bartley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership