Posted: 6/17/2013 5:41:40 AM EDT
|
Trying to determine what percentage the palms and soles of feet would be considered. My understanding is that palms are generally 1% each. Is there a "normal" rating for soles of the feet (including arches)? Several charts show 1.5% for hands, and 1.75% for feet. Is that for one side, or is that total surface area for that appendage?
For those in GD that have no clue what I'm talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_body_surface_area |
|
I'd always been taught that the palms =1% of bsa, never really thought much about the soles of the feet but would probably just give them 1% or 1.5% if you need to be technical.
If half a point separated the magical line of burn center or no burn center, I'd be over counting everything. |
|
Quoted:
I'd always been taught that the palms =1% of bsa, never really thought much about the soles of the feet but would probably just give them 1% or 1.5% if you need to be technical. If half a point separated the magical line of burn center or no burn center, I'd be over counting everything. But if you were the VA, and trying to disapprove a claim... it would fall slightly below 5%. 
I have a feeling I got fucked. But I want to make sure I have my facts straight before I hoist the BS flag. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd always been taught that the palms =1% of bsa, never really thought much about the soles of the feet but would probably just give them 1% or 1.5% if you need to be technical. If half a point separated the magical line of burn center or no burn center, I'd be over counting everything. But if you were the VA, and trying to disapprove a claim... it would fall slightly below 5%.
I have a feeling I got fucked. But I want to make sure I have my facts straight before I hoist the BS flag. I'd think 1% areas would be counted as "critical" areas for that as they are when dealing with the initial injury and thereby be approved. But this is the VA we're talking about...... |
|
Quoted:
Everything I've been taught says 1% but a quick image search does show two charts that list 1.75%. Idk where those 1.75% came from. I was curious if it was 1.75 for the whole foot perhaps. Not trying to game the system, or get anything I'm not entitled to. I get severe dishidrosis on my hands and feet. gets so bad, I have problems at work (i work in IT, makes typing hell) and wearing anything on my feet can be very painful. Started in Iraq, and returns from time to time. With skin conditions, if it's under 5% TBSA, it's non compensable. And that's fine.... if I'm under the limit, I'm under the limit. I'll survive. |
|
Quoted:
I'd think 1% areas would be counted as "critical" areas for that as they are when dealing with the initial injury and thereby be approved. But this is the VA we're talking about...... Initially, it was just my hands. I did have issues with my feet, but at the time, thought it was athlete's foot. Initial claim was granted service connection, but since it was only the palms (2% total), it was 0% compensable. Fast forward, my wife points out that my feet act up at the same time as my hands (i know, I felt like a moron when she said it). Go to VA, file for upgraded claim due to change in affected area. They approve the new area as service connected, but claim it is still below 5% total area coverage, and compensable at 0%. Initially, when it was just my hands, I tried to get an increased rating, since my hands were pretty useless at times, but they offered no different rating due to the location. If you have a strong stomach, googe image "dishidrosis". |
|
Quoted:
The palm of the hand is usually considered 1%. Not the examiner's palm, it's the patient's palm. going by that, I should be over 5%. Not only does it affect the palm, but also the palm side of the fingers, and between fingers. That, added with the sole, arch, and between toes of the foot and up the sides, should be over 5%. |
|
That's very interesting.
12 years ago they said I had burns on 18% of my body, but it was basically back of both hands, palms of both hands, back of one leg and my face. I never really thought that was quite 18% and after looking at the chart I still can't see where they got 18%. My son at the time was 2 and they said he was 33%, which appeared about right. |