191010-36850

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedJune 16, 2020
Docket191010-36850
StatusUnpublished

This text of 191010-36850 (191010-36850) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
191010-36850, (bva 2020).

Opinion

Citation Nr: AXXXXXXXX Decision Date: 06/16/20 Archive Date: 06/16/20

DOCKET NO. 191010-36850 DATE: June 16, 2020

ORDER

Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) from January 14, 2016 to August 19, 2016 is granted.

Entitlement to a TDIU beginning November 1, 2016 is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities meet the schedular requirements for a TDIU.

2. The claim for TDIU was received on January 14, 2016.

3. Prior to his back surgery on August 19, 2016, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities at least as likely as not precluded him from obtaining and maintaining substantial gainful employment.

4. Beginning on November 1, 2016, his service-connected disabilities were not shown to preclude him from obtaining and maintaining substantial gainful employment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for entitlement to a TDIU from January 14, 2016 to August 19, 2016 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19.

2. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU beginning November 1, 2016 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1990 to September 1994.

The initial rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) was issued in July 2016.

On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for appeals of VA decisions. AMA became effective on February 19, 2019.

After the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement with this decision in December 2016 under the Legacy system, he elected to have his appeal processed in the modernized review system. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(d). He selected the Supplemental Claim lane when he opted into the AMA review system by submitting a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) election form that was received in June 2018.

The RO withdrew his appeal from the Legacy system and issued a RAMP Supplemental Claim rating decision in December 2018; the decision was not sent until January 2019.

In May 2019, the Veteran requested the Higher-Level Review lane using Form 20-0996, but because some evidence had not been considered in the December 2018 rating decision, the RO issued another Supplemental Claim rating decision in June 2019. In October 2019, a notice of disagreement for Direct Board Review using Form 10182 was received. The Veteran did not request a Board hearing.

The Board notes that there is also an appeal in the AMA system for the denial of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, which has been addressed separately. In a separate June 2020 decision, the Board has granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. A subsequent June 2020 rating decision assigned a 50 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) effective May 2, 2013. The Board may not consider the now service-connected PTSD in connection with the claim for TDIU, as the Board is limited to the evidence of record at the time of the June 2019 rating decision.

Entitlement to a TDIU

VA will grant a TDIU when the evidence shows that a veteran is precluded from obtaining or maintaining any gainful employment consistent with his or her education and occupational experience, by reason of service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16.

A total rating for compensation purposes may be assigned where the scheduler rating is less than total when it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or as a result of two or more service-connected disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a).

The sole fact that a claimant is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. A high rating itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain and keep employment. The question is whether the veteran had been capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the veteran can find employment. In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the veteran’s level of education, special training and previous work experience, but not to his age or to any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993).

1. Entitlement to TDIU from January 14, 2016 to August 19, 2016.

2. Entitlement to a TDIU beginning November 1, 2016.

In this case, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities include a low back disability, bilateral lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy, bilateral knee laxity, bilateral knee arthritis, and tinnitus. These disabilities have a combined rating of 70 percent since January 22, 2009 with a temporary total rating for the low back disability in effect from August 19, 2016 to November 1, 2016. See June 2019 Rating Decision - Codesheet. Thus, the schedular requirements for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) are met.

The Veteran filed his claim for a TDIU and it was received on January 14, 2016. In a January 2016 statement he reported that he could not work due to his disabilities. He had constant pain from his disabilities and limited use of his right shoulder, neck pain, hearing loss and tinnitus, and sarcoidosis (a respiratory disorder) made it more difficult to breathe. He spent a lot of time driving to and from medical appointments and spent a lot of time lying in bed. He believed that if employed he would be fired due to absenteeism. See January 2016 Correspondence. Not all the disorders the Veteran attributes to his unemployability noted above are service connected and the Board is limited to only considering whether his service-connected disabilities render him unemployable.

Records from the Social Security Administration show that he reported his previous employment involved manual labor such as carpentry, electrical work, roofing, and construction. He also reported working as an experiential instructor in a youth program from 2004 to 2007, adventure trips program director for a YMCA youth program from 2004 to 2006, and a white water rafting guide for three months in 2006.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gary D. Bradley v. James B. Peake
22 Vet. App. 280 (Veterans Claims, 2008)
Van Hoose v. Brown
4 Vet. App. 361 (Veterans Claims, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191010-36850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/191010-36850-bva-2020.