Samuel L. Mayhue v. Eric K. Shinseki
24 Vet. App. 273
Vet. App.2011Background
- Mayhue appeals a 2008 Board decision denying earlier PTSD effective date, higher PTSD rating, and earlier TDIU effective date.
- VA awarded 50% PTSD in 2005 after stressor verification; 70% initial rating issues arose in 2006-2006 appeals.
- Board relied on 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) and found stressor verification complete as of Sept. 5, 2000, limiting retroactive effective date.
- VA later granted TDIU with an April 1, 2005 date, based on Mayhue’s claimed unemployability tied to PTSD symptoms.
- Mayhue contends Board misapplied § 3.156(c), failed to apply § 3.156(b) for evidence during appeal, and did not adequately justify not granting 100% rating.
- Court vacates the PTSD effective date and TDIU issues for remand; affirms the 70% PTSD rating and Board’s reasons for not awarding 100% rating.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper effective date for PTSD benefits | Mayhue: § 3.156(c) misapplied; retroactive date could be earlier. | Secretary: current practice clarifies; limitations exist under § 3.156(c)(2). | Remand to apply correct § 3.156 framework; date to be determined. |
| Applicability of § 3.156(c)(2) | Board erred by applying § 3.156(c)(2) to suppress earlier date due to lack of cooperation. | § 3.156(c)(2) restricts reconsideration for records not obtained. | § 3.156(c)(2) not applicable here; vacate and remand on the effective date issue. |
| Failure to apply § 3.156(b) for unemployability evidence | Unemployability evidence submitted within one year should be considered as part of underlying claim. | Board treated unemployability separately from initial rating claim. | Board erred; vacate and remand to consider evidence under § 3.156(b). |
| Reasoning for 100% PTSD rating | GAFC scores and symptoms should support 100% rating; Board failed to justify not awarding 100%. | Board thoroughly discussed symptoms and concluded 70% best fits. | Reasoning found adequate; no remand on this aspect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet.App. 447 (2009) (unemployability as part of underlying claim; consider evidence within one-year period)
- Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 63 (2008) (clarified § 3.156(c) interpretation and retroactivity)
- Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498 (1995) (reasonableness of reasons or bases for rating determinations)
- Gilbert v. Principi, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990) (necessity of coherent reasons or bases for findings)
- Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (administrative procedures and prejudicial error standards)