Gazelle v. Shulkin, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15921

Frederick Gazelle, a Vietnam-era veteran, receives VA compensation for multiple service‑connected conditions and had PTSD increased to 100% in 2009.
Gazelle claimed entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s)(1), which requires a total-rated disability plus “additional service‑connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more.”
The VA applied the combined ratings table (38 C.F.R. § 4.25) to Gazelle’s additional disabilities and produced a combined rating of 50%, denying SMC.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the denial; the Veterans Court affirmed, holding the combined ratings table governs the § 1114(s)(1) 60% requirement.
Gazelle appealed to the Federal Circuit arguing that Congress intended a simple additive (binary) test — whether the individually rated additional disabilities sum to 60% or more — and that the combined ratings table should not be applied.
The Federal Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed the Veterans Court, holding § 1114(s)(1) unambiguously requires use of the combined ratings table to determine whether additional disabilities meet the 60% threshold.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1114(s)(1)’s phrase “additional service‑connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more” requires simple addition of individual ratings (binary test) or use of the VA combined ratings table	Gazelle: the statute’s plain language requires a binary determination — add the independent ratings and check if they total ≥60%; no need to apply combined ratings rules	Government: the statutory text must be read in context of Title 38 and existing rating scheme; Congress enacted § 1114(s)(1) against a backdrop where the combined ratings table was the established method for rating multiple disabilities	The court held the statute, read in context with §§ 1155 and 1157 and historical practice, unambiguously requires use of the combined ratings table rather than simple arithmetic addition of individual ratings.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for evaluating agency statutory interpretations)
Parrott v. Shulkin, 851 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (de novo review of Veterans Court statutory/regulatory interpretations)
Guerra v. Shinseki, 642 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (application of Chevron to VA statutory interpretation)
Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (discussing combined ratings methodology and rationale)
Morgan v. Principi, 327 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (presumption Congress legislates against backdrop of existing law)