10-42 967, 10-42 967

Veteran served 1966–1970; initially granted service connection for PTSD (10%) in Nov 2009; increased to 30% (Sep 2010) and later to 50% (Dec 2016). Appeal stems from RO decisions out of Huntington, WV.
Veteran and representative testified at an August 2014 Board hearing; record includes multiple VA exams, private evaluations, treatment records, lay statements, and hearing transcript.
Medical evidence shows symptoms evolving: through 2009–2011 symptoms consistent with mild–moderate PTSD (30% level); from Jan 18, 2012 onward records and clinician opinions show deficiencies in most areas (suicidal ideation, nightmares, anger, isolation) consistent with a 70% level.
Conflicting evidence exists (some treatment notes in 2016 report improved mood and sleep), but the Board found the overall record in equipoise as of Jan 18, 2012.
Combined ratings reached 80% effective Jan 18, 2012 (PTSD 70%, hearing loss 20%, tinnitus 10%), meeting schedular criteria for TDIU; Board granted TDIU effective Jan 18, 2012 based on service-connected disabilities and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to an initial rating >30% for PTSD prior to Apr 13, 2016, and >50% thereafter (increase request for entire appeal period)	Veteran argued PTSD severity warrants higher rating (deficits in work, social function, suicidal ideation, aggression)	VA relied on exam findings showing periods of functioning, social contacts, and some improved mood/sleep to support lower ratings	Prior to Jan 18, 2012: 30% denied. From Jan 18, 2012: 70% granted (but no higher).
Entitlement to TDIU	Veteran argued service-connected PTSD precludes substantially gainful employment	VA noted retirement in 1993 but the Board applied evidence and regulatory criteria to assess unemployability	TDIU granted effective Jan 18, 2012 (combined rating met schedular criteria and evidence in equipoise; benefit-of-the-doubt resolved for Veteran).

Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (requirement that hearing officer explain issues and suggest omitted evidence)
Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (rating criteria examples are non‑exhaustive)
Vazquez‑Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir.) (claimant must demonstrate symptoms of corresponding severity/frequency/duration for a given rating)
Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (extraschedular referral when symptoms are not contemplated by rating schedule)
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (tie‑goes‑to‑the‑veteran/benefit‑of‑the‑doubt standard)
Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524 (central inquiry for unemployability is whether service‑connected disabilities alone preclude employment)
Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (VA satisfied duties to notify and assist; meaningful participation in development)
Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (adequacy of VA examinations for adjudication)