Butts v. Brown — Board must address favorable evidence and use an appropriate diagnostic code supported by the record

Chester L. Butts appealed a Board decision that denied several service-connection claims and multiple compensable ratings. The Court affirmed the denials for the right index finger, pseudofolliculitis barbae, bilateral foot disorder, lumbosacral strain, rhinitis, and the Board’s disposition of the 38 C.F.R. § 3.324 claim. However, the Court vacated and remanded the left-ear hearing-loss claim because the Board failed to discuss favorable evidence, including inconclusive audiology results and a physician’s statement suggesting mild high-frequency neurosensory hearing loss. The Court also remanded the perianal abscess rating because the Board did not discuss evidence of treatment and testimony describing ongoing symptoms, and it remanded tinnitus because the Board and RO rated it under the rhinitis diagnostic code without evidence of a causal connection between rhinitis and tinnitus. The Court further held that the record reasonably raised a claim for otitis externa that VA had not adjudicated, triggering the duty to assist. In reaching the tinnitus issue, the Court clarified that selection of a diagnostic code is reviewed under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, not as a pure question of law, and that the Board must explain its diagnostic-code choice when the rationale is not apparent from the record.

The Board must provide adequate reasons or bases by addressing materially favorable evidence and reasonably raised claims, and its selection of a diagnostic code will be upheld unless arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Butts is a key case for challenging unsupported rating-code choices and Board silence on favorable evidence. It also supports arguments that VA must adjudicate reasonably raised issues even when the claimant did not expressly package them as separate claims.

This case matters because it links reasons-or-bases review with rating-code selection and shows that the Board cannot assign a diagnostic code without a record-based explanation. It is also a useful duty-to-assist and reasonably-raised-claim decision, especially where examination findings suggest a diagnosis or disability not formally adjudicated.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A veteran’s service-connected condition is rated under a code for a different body system, and the Board never explains the causal theory or why that code fits the disability. The record also contains favorable medical comments and treatment evidence that the Board does not discuss.

Use Butts to argue that the Board must explain a diagnostic-code selection, discuss favorable medical evidence, and adjudicate disability theories reasonably raised by the record. It is especially helpful when a rating is assigned under an obviously mismatched code or when the Board omits evidence that supports a compensable evaluation.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Pernorio v. Derwinski, Lichtenfels v. Derwinski, Bucklinger v. Brown, Lendenmann v. Principi