13-08 318
13-08 318
| Board of Vet. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served 1998–1999 and 2003–2004 (Army, Reserve until 2006); service connection for PTSD was granted by RO in April 2011 with a 30% rating effective May 16, 2008.
- Record includes VA treatment notes (2005–2015), VA examinations (March 2011, June 2015), and lay statements from spouse, coworkers, fellow serviceman, and the Veteran.
- Symptoms documented across the record: recurrent intrusive memories, hypervigilance, irritability/anger (including some physical incidents), avoidance/isolation, chronic sleep disturbance, alcohol/substance use, and intermittent passive suicidal ideation.
- Employment: continuously employed as an accountant during much of the period, but with reported decreased productivity, accommodations (working from home), missed deadlines, and interpersonal conflict at work.
- Board remanded in April 2015; post-remand development substantially complied. Board found duty to assist satisfied and no outstanding evidence required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Veteran is entitled to an initial rating in excess of 30% for PTSD | Veteran argued PTSD causes greater occupational/social impairment (severe irritability, suicidal ideation, isolation, work decline) warranting >30% | VA/RO maintained 30% reflected occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in efficiency; argued record did not show total impairment | Board granted a 70% initial rating for PTSD for the entire appeal period (not higher) |
| Whether a staged rating is required | Veteran implicitly relied on symptom fluctuation to support higher or staged ratings | VA argued symptomatology was generally stable and did not justify staged ratings | Board found symptoms stable; staged ratings not warranted |
| Whether entitlement to TDIU is raised by the increased-rating claim | Veteran did not assert unemployability; evidence does not show unemployment due solely to service-connected PTSD | VA argued Roberson/Rice requirements not met; no TDIU issue reasonably raised | Board held TDIU not raised; no entitlement to TDIU adjudicated |
| Whether VA complied with VCAA notice and duty to assist | Veteran relied on adjudication of higher rating after service connection (downstream issue) | VA argued VCAA notice not required for downstream rating matters and duty to assist satisfied with obtained records and exams | Board found no additional VCAA notice required and duty to assist satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (remand directives require substantial compliance)
- Hartman v. Nicholson, 483 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (once service connection and rating are assigned, §5103(a) notice has served its purpose for downstream questions)
- Vazquez‑Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (rating decision must connect veteran's symptoms to level of occupational and social impairment)
- Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (regulatory symptom lists are illustrative, not exhaustive)
- Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (elements required to infer a TDIU claim from a disability rating increase claim)
- Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999) (requirement to consider staged ratings when appropriate)