Mr. Slaughter, a Navy veteran, sought a rating higher than 40 percent for service-connected right ulnar nerve entrapment. The Board had increased the rating under DC 8516 and declined to use DC 8512, reasoning that the symptoms from the service-connected ulnar nerve injury could not be separated from symptoms associated with a non-service-connected median nerve injury, but that only the ulnar nerve condition was service connected. The Veterans Court affirmed without addressing the merits of the diagnostic-code interpretation and instead required a showing of prejudice. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the Veterans Court applied an overly rigid prejudicial-error standard under Shinseki v. Sanders, but found the error harmless because the Board correctly interpreted 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. The court construed the note stating that “combined nerve injuries should be rated by reference to the major involvement, or if sufficient in extent, consider radicular group ratings” to apply only to service-connected injuries. Because the veteran had only one service-connected nerve injury, the Board was not required to consider a radicular group rating.

In 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, the phrase “combined nerve injuries” refers to multiple service-connected nerve injuries; it does not include a combination of service-connected and non-service-connected nerve injuries.

Advocates should not rely on the § 4.124a combined-nerve note to pull in non-service-connected nerve pathology. The case also reinforces that challenges to a diagnostic-code interpretation can be reviewed as legal questions, separate from factual rating selection.

The decision provides a clear limiting construction of the combined-nerve note in the peripheral nerve rating schedule. It is useful when disputing whether VA must consider radicular-group ratings and when framing appellate arguments as regulatory-interpretation issues rather than fact disputes.

A veteran has a service-connected ulnar nerve disability and a separately diagnosed, non-service-connected median nerve disorder. The veteran argues that the combined effect of both nerve problems requires rating under a radicular group diagnostic code. Under Slaughter, that argument fails unless the other nerve injury is also service connected.

Use this case to argue that § 4.124a combined-nerve analysis is limited to service-connected injuries and that non-service-connected nerve impairment cannot be imported into the schedular rating pathway. It is also helpful when preserving legal-error arguments about misinterpretation of a diagnostic code or note.

Shinseki v. Sanders, Simmons v. Wilkie, Kisor v. Wilkie, Langdon v. McDonough, Tadlock v. McDonough, King v. Shinseki, Linville v. West, Hodge v. West