Hill v. Principi — New and material evidence must be noncumulative, relevant, and reasonably likely to change the outcome; DC 5226 permits a compensable rating for favorable middle-finger ankylosis

The appellant appealed a Board decision that refused to reopen a hearing-loss claim and denied a compensable rating for a service-connected right middle finger disability. On reopening, the Court applied the then-governing new-and-material-evidence standard and concluded that Dr. Hunt’s second statement was essentially cumulative of his earlier statement because it added only that treatment occurred shortly after service, without linking any treatment to hearing loss or otherwise creating a reasonable possibility of changing the outcome. The Court therefore affirmed the Board’s refusal to reopen the hearing-loss claim.

On the rating issue, the Court focused on the wording of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5226, and the accompanying notes. The Board had effectively required evidence that ankylosis or limitation of motion prevented flexion to within two inches of the palm before a compensable rating could be assigned. The Court read the regulation differently, explaining that if the finger could flex to within two inches of the palm, the condition was favorable ankylosis and DC 5226 provided a 10% evaluation. Because the record showed the veteran could reach his palm, albeit with difficulty, the Court reversed and remanded for a compensable rating consistent with the regulation’s plain language. The case matters because it illustrates both the strictness of reopening requirements and the necessity of applying rating criteria as written rather than adding unstated restrictions.

Evidence is new and material only if it is noncumulative, relevant and probative, and reasonably capable of changing the prior outcome; under DC 5226, favorable ankylosis of the middle finger warrants a 10% rating when the digit can flex to within two inches of the palm.

Advocates should ensure reopening evidence adds a real nexus or factual basis, not just more detail, and should challenge Board interpretations of diagnostic codes that impose requirements not found in the regulation.

Hill is useful on both reopening and rating interpretation. It confirms that merely refining an earlier medical statement does not reopen a final denial absent material nexus value, and it shows that a veteran may prevail when the Board reads a diagnostic code more narrowly than its text allows.

Improper Interpretation of Regulation

A veteran submits a second doctor letter that repeats the same treatment history but still does not connect a disability to service; the claim remains closed because the evidence is cumulative and not material. Separately, if VA denies a compensable finger rating by adding a restriction not present in DC 5226, Hill supports reversal or remand.

Use Hill to argue against reopening where the new evidence is duplicative, and to attack rating decisions that deviate from the plain language of DC 5226 or similar diagnostic codes.

Colvin v. Derwinski, Manio v. Derwinski