Case: 22-1243    Document: 37     Page: 1   Filed: 06/29/2023




   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    JOHN W. WEBB,
                    Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

       DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
              VETERANS AFFAIRS,
               Respondent-Appellee
              ______________________

                        2022-1243
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
 Veterans Claims in No. 20-8064, Judge Michael P. Allen.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: June 29, 2023
                  ______________________

      JENNIFER TRACY SHANNON HEALY, Veterans Legal Ad-
 vocacy Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appel-
 lant. Also represented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN,
 III, MEGAN EILEEN HOFFMAN.

     ANDREW JAMES HUNTER, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
 Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN
 BYNUM, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON,
 BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States
 Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Case: 22-1243     Document: 37     Page: 2    Filed: 06/29/2023




 2                                        WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH



                   ______________________

     Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
     Some veterans have service-connected conditions that
 are not listed in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA)
 Schedule of Disability Ratings. In those circumstances, the
 VA can choose an appropriate disability rating for the vet-
 eran’s unlisted condition by analogizing it to a listed one.
 This appeal involves the framework for how the VA per-
 forms such a rating by analogy.
      John W. Webb appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of
 Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming
 the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ determination that he was
 not entitled to a compensable disability rating for his un-
 listed service-connected condition because he did not meet
 all the criteria of the analogous condition’s diagnostic code.
 Because the Veterans Court misinterpreted the require-
 ments of the applicable regulation, 

, we va-
 cate its decision and remand for further consideration.
                         BACKGROUND
      The VA promulgates a Schedule for Rating Disabilities
 that provides an extensive list of disabilities identified by
 unique diagnostic codes, each of which has at least one cor-
 responding disability rating. 

; 38 C.F.R.
 pt. 4. Although the Schedule is extensive, it is possible that
 a particular veteran’s disability does not clearly fall under
 one of the delineated diagnostic codes. VA regulations ad-
 dress this possibility:
     When an unlisted condition is encountered it will
     be permissible to rate under a closely related dis-
     ease or injury in which not only the functions af-
     fected, but the anatomical localization and
     symptomatology are closely analogous.
Case: 22-1243     Document: 37     Page: 3    Filed: 06/29/2023




 WEBB    v. MCDONOUGH                                        3



 

. In other words, this regulation provides
 that a veteran having an “unlisted” condition, i.e., one that
 is not included on the Schedule, can be rated analogously
 to—and given the associated disability rating of—a listed
 disease or injury, provided that the affected functions, an-
 atomical location, and symptomatology of the veteran’s
 condition are “closely analogous” to those of the listed dis-
 ease or injury. For example, “a veteran’s non-migraine
 headaches could be rated as analogous to migraine head-
 aches.” Jeffrey D. Parker, Getting the Train Back on Track:
 Legal Principles to Guide Extra-Schedular Referrals in
 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Rating
 Claim Adjudications, 28 FED. CIR. B.J. 175, 192 (2019).
     In Lendenmann v. Principi, the Veterans Court elabo-
 rated on this regulatory guidance, explaining that, “[i]n de-
 ciding whether a listed disease or injury is ‘closely related’
 to the veteran’s ailment, the VA may take into considera-
 tion three factors” when determining which diagnostic code
 is most “closely analogous” to a given unlisted disabil-
 ity: “(1) whether the ‘functions affected’ by ailments are
 analogous; (2) whether the ‘anatomical localization’ of the
 ailments is analogous; and (3) whether the ‘symptomatol-
 ogy’ of the ailments is analogous.” 

 (1992) (quoting 

). 1
     With this brief legal background in mind, we now turn
 to the facts of this case. Mr. Webb served in the Army from
 1968 to 1970, receiving an honorable discharge. After the
 conclusion of his service, Mr. Webb developed, among other
 ailments, service-connected prostate cancer, the treatment


     1   We note that Lendenmann requires that each of
 these three factors be “analogous,” while § 4.20 requires
 that these factors be “closely analogous.” To the extent this
 inconsistency is meaningful, however, we need not address
 it further here, as it makes no difference to our opinion in
 this case.
Case: 22-1243     Document: 37     Page: 4    Filed: 06/29/2023




 4                                        WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH



 for which caused him to develop erectile dysfunction (ED).
 In 2015, after Mr. Webb reopened an earlier claim request-
 ing disability benefits for his ED, a Regional Office (RO) of
 the VA issued a decision assigning Mr. Webb a noncompen-
 sable (i.e., zero percent) rating for his disability. At that
 time, the Schedule did not include a diagnostic code for ED.
 See 

.115b (2015). 2 As a result, the RO rated
 Mr. Webb’s disability by analogy to diagnostic code (DC)
 7522, which provides for a 20 percent disability rating for
 “[p]enis, deformity, with loss of erectile power.” 

 DC 7522. With little discussion, the RO determined that
 Mr. Webb’s particular disability entitled him only to a non-
 compensable rating. See J.A. 774–75, 780.
     Mr. Webb appealed to the Board, which affirmed the
 RO’s determination. J.A. 13–20. The Board acknowledged
 that Mr. Webb’s disability had been rated by analogy, as
 provided for by 

, but explained that
 DC 7522 required Mr. Webb to show “deformity of the pe-
 nis with loss of erectile power.” J.A. 18–19. Because
 Mr. Webb did not have such a deformity, the Board deter-
 mined that he was not entitled to a compensable disability
 rating. J.A. 19 (“As no penile deformity has been shown, a
 separate compensable rating for erectile dysfunction under
 DC 7522 is not warranted . . . .”).



     2   The Schedule has since been revised to provide for
 a zero percent, i.e., noncompensable, disability rating for
 ED alone. See 

.115b, DC 7522 (2021) (provid-
 ing a zero percent rating for “[e]rectile dysfunction, with or
 without penile deformity”). The government properly notes
 that this revised version of DC 7522 does not apply to
 Mr. Webb’s case because nothing in the revised rule indi-
 cates that it was intended to apply retroactively. See
 

(g); see also Appellee’s Br. 7 n.3 (agreeing
 that the revised version of DC 7522 does not apply to
 Mr. Webb’s case).
Case: 22-1243    Document: 37      Page: 5    Filed: 06/29/2023




 WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH                                        5



      The Veterans Court affirmed. In its brief opinion, the
 Veterans Court determined that a prior Veterans Court de-
 cision, Williams v. Wilkie, 

 (2018), was “fa-
 tal to [Mr. Webb]’s argument.” Webb v. McDonough,
 No. 20-8064, 

, at *1 (Vet. App. Aug. 17,
 2021). The court explained its view that “[i]mplicit in the
 [c]ourt’s holding in Williams is that[,] when ED is rated un-
 der DC 7522, a claimant must establish a penile deformity
 to be entitled to” benefits, and thus that Mr. Webb’s argu-
 ment “is foreclosed by” Williams. 

.
    Mr. Webb appeals.        We have jurisdiction under
 

(c).
                         DISCUSSION
     On appeal, Mr. Webb challenges the Veterans Court’s
 interpretation of 

. We review the Veterans
 Court’s interpretation of a regulation de novo. See
 

(c); Pickett v. McDonough, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
     In its brief analysis affirming the Board’s conclusion
 that Mr. Webb was not entitled to benefits, the Veterans
 Court addressed neither the explicit requirements of § 4.20
 nor the Lendenmann factors. See Webb, 

,
 at *1–3. In other words, the court did not address whether
 the functions affected, anatomical location, and sympto-
 matology of Mr. Webb’s condition are closely analogous to
 the functions affected, anatomical location, and sympto-
 matology of the condition listed under DC 7522. The Vet-
 erans Court was not alone—indeed, at no point in
 Mr. Webb’s case, including before the RO and the Board,
 did any agency or court substantively discuss the text of
 § 4.20 (or even the related guidance in Lendenmann) and
 analyze its application to Mr. Webb’s unlisted condition.
 Rather, instead of engaging with the explicit language of
 this regulation, the VA and the Veterans Court required
 Mr. Webb to strictly meet the requirements of DC 7522 as
Case: 22-1243     Document: 37     Page: 6    Filed: 06/29/2023




 6                                        WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH



 if he were being directly rated under that code. J.A. 18–19,
 774–76, 780; Webb, 

, at *1–2.
      We conclude that the Veterans Court erred by requir-
 ing Mr. Webb, to be eligible for benefits, to show that his
 unlisted condition identically matched the criteria of the
 listed condition to which his condition was rated by anal-
 ogy. In doing so, the Veterans Court imposed a require-
 ment not stated in § 4.20, the sole regulation governing
 rating by analogy. We hold that, when rating by analogy
 under § 4.20, the VA must adhere to the requirements of
 that regulation. The listed disease or injury to which a vet-
 eran’s unlisted condition is being rated by analogy must be
 only “closely related,” not identical, to the unlisted condi-
 tion. That regulation provides guidance for determining
 whether a listed condition is “closely related” to the un-
 listed condition: it is one “in which not only the functions
 affected, but the anatomical localization and symptomatol-
 ogy are closely analogous” to the unlisted condition.
 

; see also Lendenmann, 3 Vet. App. at 350–
 51. Further, once the VA has concluded that a listed dis-
 ease or injury is “closely analogous” to a veteran’s unlisted
 condition, we see no source of law directing the VA to with-
 hold the rating based on the qualifying criteria associated
 with that listed disease or injury’s diagnostic code.
     The regulatory text supports our conclusion. Sec-
 tion 4.20 provides that when “an unlisted condition is en-
 countered,” the VA can rate that disability “under a closely
 related disease or injury in which not only the functions af-
 fected, but the anatomical localization and symptomatol-
 ogy are closely analogous.” 

 (emphases
 added). The regulation thus contemplates that it will be
 applied to certain conditions that are unlisted, i.e., not
 identical to those that are listed and assigned a specific di-
 agnostic code. When such an unlisted condition is encoun-
 tered, the VA may choose a “closely related”—again, not
 identical—listed condition to which it will rate the vet-
 eran’s unlisted condition by analogy. As a matter of plain
Case: 22-1243     Document: 37      Page: 7    Filed: 06/29/2023




 WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH                                          7



 language, it would be nonsensical to require a veteran’s un-
 listed disability to precisely meet the criteria for a listed
 disease or injury’s diagnostic code. After all, if a veteran’s
 condition did precisely meet the requirements of a listed
 condition, that condition could simply be rated under that
 listed condition’s diagnostic code; there would be no need
 to rate by analogy. See, e.g., Ulysses Copeland v. McDon-
 ald, 

 (2015) (“Where, however, a con-
 dition is listed in the schedule, rating by analogy is not
 appropriate.”). Concluding otherwise—and requiring a
 veteran’s unlisted condition to satisfy each of the criteria of
 a listed condition—would eviscerate the text and purpose
 of § 4.20, which explicitly allows for rating by analogy.
      Our conclusion aligns not only with the regulatory text
 but also with Veterans Court precedent. In Stankevich
 v. Nicholson, for example, the Veterans Court determined
 that the Board erred by requiring a veteran with an un-
 listed condition to demonstrate that his disability satisfied
 each requirement of a listed condition to which his disabil-
 ity was being rated by analogy. 

, 472–73
 (2006). Specifically, the Board rated a veteran’s undiag-
 nosed, chronic joint pain by analogy to DC 5003, for arthri-
 tis. 

. The Board found that the veteran could not
 be awarded benefits because he had not been diagnosed
 with arthritis, a requirement listed in the schedule for
 DC 5003. 

. The Veterans Court explained this
 was error, because “[t]he function affected, anatomical lo-
 calization, or symptomatology of an undiagnosed illness
 cannot be analogous if the Board applies that rating crite-
 ria to require objective evidence of a diagnosed disability.”
 

 Strictly applying the criteria of the analogous diagnos-
 tic code, the Veterans Court explained, was “arbitrary and
 capricious because the analogy is, at best, illusory.” 

 at 472–73.
     Similarly, in Lendenmann, the Veterans Court set
 forth factors that the Board must consider to determine
 which listed disease or injury is most analogous to the
Case: 22-1243     Document: 37     Page: 8    Filed: 06/29/2023




 8                                        WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH



 veteran’s unlisted condition. 3 Vet. App. at 350–51 (quot-
 ing 

). Lendenmann thus clearly contem-
 plates that such an unlisted condition would, by definition,
 not perfectly match the symptoms of any one listed condi-
 tion. 

 3
      The Veterans Court determined it was bound by what
 it viewed as an implicit holding in Williams requiring a vet-
 eran seeking to be rated by analogy to DC 7522 to meet the
 criteria of that diagnostic code. Contrary to the Veterans



     3    And, as Mr. Webb highlights in his briefing, the
 Veterans Court has, in nonprecedential decisions, repeat-
 edly concluded similarly in cases specifically involving rat-
 ing by analogy to DC 7522. Appellant’s Br. 2 & n.4. For
 example, in Hernandez v. McDonough, No. 20-0665,
 

 (Vet. App. Aug. 2, 2021), the Veterans
 Court explained that “[u]nder an analogous rating code,
 the disability being rated is not expected to manifest all the
 objective criteria of the analogous rating.” 

 at *4 (citing
 Stankevich, 

).        Similarly, in Ellis
 v. McDonald, No. 15-1264, 

 (Vet. App.
 June 29, 2016), the Veterans Court reversed the Board,
 stating that “the Board itself rated ED by analogy,” and
 “therefore a veteran [did] not necessarily have to show” all
 the requirements of the analogous diagnostic code. 

 (cleaned up). In another example, the Veterans Court
 vacated the Board’s decision in Wilkins v. McDonald,
 No. 13-3260, 

 (Vet. App. Dec. 28, 2015),
 explaining that, “[i]n its attempt to rate by analogy, it ap-
 pears that the Board explains that Mr. Wilkins is not enti-
 tled to a compensable disability rating . . . because he fails
 to meet the requirements for a listed [condition].” 

.
 In the Wilkins court’s view, the Board’s “discussion [was]
 troubling because, if Mr. Wilkins had the symptoms of Di-
 agnostic Code 7522, then rating by analogy would not be
 necessary.” 

Case: 22-1243     Document: 37      Page: 9     Filed: 06/29/2023




 WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH                                           9



 Court’s conclusion, Williams requires no such thing.
 There, a veteran simply sought a rating under DC 7522,
 arguing that he had both ED and a deformity. Williams,
 30 Vet. App. at 135–36. The Williams court remanded for
 the Board to determine, in the first instance, whether the
 veteran’s internal deformity was indeed a “deformity” as
 contemplated by DC 7522. 

. In other words, the
 veteran in Williams explicitly claimed that he met each of
 the requirements of the diagnostic code under which he
 sought benefits. This case is readily distinguishable—all
 parties agree that Mr. Webb does not meet each of the re-
 quirements of DC 7522. That is, of course, why he seeks to
 be rated by analogy and not directly under a listed code.
     The government cites to Green v. West for the proposi-
 tion that, “[o]nce a diagnostic code [is] assigned for an anal-
 ogous rating . . . , application of the criteria and the ratings
 for that code [is] required.” 

 (1998);
 see Appellee’s Br. 11–12. In the government’s view, Green
 counsels in favor of affirmance. But just as Williams does
 not support the government’s and Veterans Court’s posi-
 tion, neither does this one isolated sentence in Green. The
 context of this sentence is instructive. In Green, the VA
 had erroneously applied an outdated version of the Rating
 Schedule to a veteran’s case. 

. In the cited para-
 graph, the Veterans Court explained to the Board that, on
 remand, it had to apply the rating schedule as currently
 written, i.e., as amended, which would be more favorable
 to the veteran. 

 (“The [Board is] required to reevaluate
 the veteran’s claim using the amended rating schedule.”).
 In other words, this sentence in Green was not speaking
 broadly about how rating by analogy should be accom-
 plished in all instances. Rather, properly taken in context,
 this statement simply informs the VA that, when deter-
 mining which listed condition should be used to rate a vet-
 eran’s condition by analogy, it must apply the relevant
 version of the rating schedule.
Case: 22-1243     Document: 37    Page: 10    Filed: 06/29/2023




 10                                      WEBB   v. MCDONOUGH



     In this case, Mr. Webb seeks to have his unlisted con-
 dition rated by analogy under § 4.20, which explicitly does
 not require that he demonstrate that his condition is iden-
 tical to a listed one. But no agency or court has yet appro-
 priately applied the explicit requirements of § 4.20 to
 Mr. Webb’s case. Instead, the Veterans Court concluded
 that he is not entitled to benefits because his unlisted con-
 dition did not meet each of the criteria of a listed condi-
 tion—a requirement not present in the words of the
 regulation. Because the Veterans Court thus misinter-
 preted the requirements of § 4.20, we vacate and remand
 for that court to “suit the action to the word, the word to
 the action,” 4—in other words, to reconsider Mr. Webb’s
 case under a proper understanding of § 4.20 as informed by
 this opinion.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered the government’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above,
 we vacate the Veterans Court’s decision and remand for
 proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                            COSTS
 Costs to appellant.




       4   WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HAMLET act 3, sc. 2, ll. 18–
 19.