William Fanning appealed a Board decision denying a separate compensable rating for a tender scar in the right inguinal area associated with postoperative residuals of a right inguinal hernia and ilioinguinal nerve neuritis. The Court held that the Board had jurisdiction over the separate-scar issue because it was reasonably raised in the record and representative filings. The Court also determined that the Board erred by failing to address reasonably raised entitlement to a total and permanent disability rating based on individual unemployability, including extraschedular consideration under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b) and 4.16(b), and by failing to discuss the effect of pain on employability. In addition, the Court remanded for development of a possible secondary psychiatric disorder arising from chronic pain. Finally, the Court held that if the Board concludes a separate scar rating would constitute pyramiding, it must provide adequate reasons or bases explaining that conclusion under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1).

The Board must award separate ratings for distinct manifestations when the symptomatology is not duplicative, and if it denies a separate evaluation as pyramiding, or rejects reasonably raised unemployability, extraschedular, pain, or secondary-service-connection theories, it must provide an adequate reasons-or-bases explanation and necessary development.

Fanning is a core case for arguing that the Board must separately analyze distinct symptoms, especially scars, pain, unemployability, and secondary conditions, rather than subsuming them into one disability picture.

It is a useful authority for preserving separate-rating arguments and for forcing the Board to address unemployability and extraschedular entitlement when the record reasonably raises them. It also reinforces that pain and secondary psychiatric symptoms may require further development, not summary rejection.

Failing to address a reasonably raised separate rating, unemployability, or secondary condition theory and then denying benefits without an adequate reasons-or-bases discussion.

A veteran has a service-connected orthopedic or hernia disability plus a tender surgical scar and chronic pain. The Board denies a separate scar rating and ignores evidence that the pain prevents work. Fanning supports remand for separate analysis, extraschedular review, and unemployability consideration.

Cite this case when the Board treats multiple distinct manifestations as one disability, omits an unemployability analysis, or concludes pyramiding without explaining why the symptoms overlap. It is especially useful for remand requests involving scars, pain-based functional impact, and secondary psychiatric claims.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Green v. Derwinski, Littke v. Derwinski, Mingo v. Derwinski, EF v. Derwinski, Akles v. Derwinski, Douglas v. Derwinski, Moyer v. Derwinski, Brady v. Derwinski