10-03 511, 10-03 511

Veteran served multiple periods of active duty; filed for TDIU on appeal from an August 2008 RO decision. Board took Rice-based jurisdiction and remanded; matter returned for decision.
Service‑connected disabilities at issue (effective Jan 15, 2008 through Apr 5, 2013 window): multiple sclerosis (MS), specific phobia of enclosed spaces, migraines, and various neurologic sensory deficits; combined rating reached 80% (Jan 15, 2008) and 90% (Mar 16, 2011).
Medical records show relapsing‑remitting MS with recurring exacerbations (Nov 2009–Apr 2010), severe fatigue, numbness/weakness impairing hand function, interferon side effects, and frequent migraines causing incapacitation.
VA psychiatric and neurological exams (June & Dec 2008) described significant occupational impairment from phobia and from MS-related fatigue/neurologic symptoms; Dec 2008 examiner limited the Veteran from manual labor but opined no impediment to sedentary work (disputed by Board).
Private treating physicians (2011–2012) opined MS rendered the Veteran unable to sustain work; she returned to work Nov 2010 but experienced severe fatigue and long commutes, and later medically retired (post‑2013).
Board found, resolving doubt in favor of the Veteran, that from Jan 15, 2008 until Nov 8, 2010 (but not earlier than Jan 15, 2008) the Veteran’s service‑connected disabilities precluded substantially gainful employment and granted TDIU for that period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TDIU is warranted prior to Apr 6, 2013	Veteran argued MS, phobia, migraines, and fatigue prevented obtaining/maintaining substantially gainful employment beginning Jan 15, 2008	VA had previously denied increased rating/TDIU; examiners opined no impairment to sedentary work (Dec 2008) and that work avoiding triggers could be feasible (June 2008 psych)	TDIU granted from Jan 15, 2008 to Nov 8, 2010 (denied prior to Jan 15, 2008 and for period of employment Nov 8, 2010–Apr 5, 2013)

Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (Board jurisdiction where TDIU reasonably raised) (explains when Board may adjudicate TDIU raised by an increased-rating appeal)
Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (definition of substantially gainful employment)
Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (Board need not discuss every piece of evidence)
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.) (discussing adequacy of VA notice and duty to assist)