Citation Nr: 18154217
Decision Date: 11/29/18	Archive Date: 11/29/18

DOCKET NO. 16-50 610
DATE:	November 29, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to a rating greater than 30 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for the period prior to May 2, 2015, is denied.
Entitlement to a 50 percent rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for the period beginning on May 2, 2015, is granted.
Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU), to include extraschedular referral, is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. For the period prior to May 2, 2015, the Veteran’s PTSD manifested with symptoms of nightmares, intrusive thoughts, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, and hypervigilance, causing social and occupational impairment with an occasional decrease in work efficiency, but not impairment with reduced reliability or productivity, deficiencies in most areas, nor total social and occupational impairment or symptoms that equate in severity, frequency or duration to the higher levels of impairment.
2. For the period beginning on May 2, 2015, the Veteran’s PTSD manifested with symptoms of nightmares, intrusive thoughts, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, hypervigilance, avoidance, concentration problems, and issues of mistrust causing impairment with reduced reliability or productivity, but not deficiencies in most areas, nor total social and occupational impairment or symptoms that equate in severity, frequency or duration to the deficiencies in most areas or total occupational and social imapirment.
3. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not preclude the Veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD for the period prior to May 2, 2015, have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2018).
2. The criteria for a 50 percent evaluation for PTSD for the period beginning on May 2, 2015, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2018).
3. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU, to include extraschedular referral, have not been met.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.15, 4.16 (2018).  
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veteran had active duty service from November 1966 to November 1969.
As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran’s VA Form 9 is ambiguous as to whether his appeal for entitlement to a TDIU was perfected.  The Veteran appears to have limited his appeal as to the issue of an increased rating for PTSD as this is specifically noted on his form; however, the Veteran also checked the appropriate box noting that he wanted to appeal all of the issues listed in the SOC.  Given the ambiguity, the Board resolves such in favor of the Veteran and finds that the Veteran filed a timely appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to a TDIU.  Accordingly, the Board has jurisdiction and the issue has been decided in the decision herein.  
1. Entitlement to a rating greater than 30 percent for PTSD.
Disability ratings are determined by evaluating the extent to which a Veteran’s service-connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing the symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule).  38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10 (2018).
In evaluating a disability, the Board considers the current examination reports in light of the whole recorded history to ensure that the current rating accurately reflects the severity of the condition.  The Board has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable.  Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991).  The medical, as well as industrial history is to be considered, and a full description of the effects of the disability upon ordinary activity is also required.  38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10 (2018).
Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating.  Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2018).  Reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in the Veteran’s favor.  38 C.F.R. § 4.3 (2018).  Separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as “staged” ratings.  Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).
When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2018).
The Veteran’s PTSD has been evaluated as 30 percent disabling for the entire period on appeal under Diagnostic Code 9411.  Diagnostic Code 9411 uses the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders.  38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2018).  
Under the General Rating Formula, a 50 percent rating is assigned when a veteran’s PTSD causes occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short-term and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.  38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2018).
A 70 percent evaluation is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.  38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2018).
The maximum schedular rating of 100 percent is warranted when there is total occupational and social impairment due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or own name.  38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2018).
In addition, when evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the lengths of remissions, and the Veteran’s capacity for adjustment during periods of remission.  38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a) (2018).  The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner’s assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id.  However, when evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation on the basis of social impairment.  38 C.F.R. § 4.126(b) (2018).  
Use of the term “such symptoms as” in § 4.130 indicates that the list of symptoms that follows is “non-exhaustive,” meaning that VA is not required to find the presence of all, most, or even some of the enumerated symptoms to assign a particular evaluation.  Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 115 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir.2004); Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002).  However, because “[a]ll nonzero disability levels [in § 4.130] are also associated with objectively observable symptomatology,” and because the plain language of the regulation makes clear that “the veteran’s impairment must be ‘due to’ those symptoms,” a veteran “may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration.”  Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 116-17.
The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file.  Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by a Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail.  Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim.  See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000).
The Veteran is seeking a rating greater than 30 percent for his PTSD.  Factual background shows that the Veteran received a VA examination in July 2013 where the Veteran reported having symptoms of anxiety, dreams, intrusive thoughts, and sleep disturbance since his discharge from service.  He further reported symptoms of hypervigilance where he checks his doors and windows twice a week when he wakes, mild depressive symptoms which are infrequent and inconsistent, and that he still carries frustration with how he was treated when he returned from Vietnam.  The Veteran also reported an incident of military sexual trauma; however, he never reported the incident.  He reported that the event does not bother him day to day, but it does stay in his mind.  
Socially, the Veteran reported having a good relationship with his family, and that he speaks to one of his sisters every other day.  He reported being married for 43 years with no major marital problems, and that he sees his children 2 to 3 times a week.  Additionally, he reported having six grandchildren with whom he has a good relationship.  Outside of his family, the Veteran reported that he attends church every Sunday, and that he works at his church, sings in the choir, and is part of the trustee board.  He reported being involved with the Parks and Recreation advisory board for 30 years, and that he does something once or twice a week with one of his friends.  Occupationally, the Veteran reported that he worked at the post office, a local police department, construction, and eventually retired with the State of North Carolina’s State Capitol Police with approximately 27 years.  He reported that he got along with co-workers, was never fired, and described his job as stressful, although he did not consider it stressful at the time.
Upon examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s hygiene and grooming were good.  He was alert, attentive, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation.  His immediate and remote memory abilities were intact, and the Veteran exhibited abstract reasoning abilities in response to common proverbs.  Thought processes were logical and organized, and there was no evidence of delusional thought content.  The Veteran described his mood as “relaxed,” and he presented with a normal range of affect.  He denied feeling particularly anxious or irritable over the past month, and denied suicidal/homicidal ideation.  The examiner noted symptoms of anxiety and chronic sleep impairment, and found that the Veteran’s symptoms may cause personal distress, but are subdromal at this time.  The examiner further noted that the Veteran’s symptoms are not of the severity to meet the criteria for PTSD.  The examiner found that the Veteran is best described as having an anxiety disorder, NOS, and that the Veteran’s symptoms are transient that lead to no more than slight impairment in social and occupational functioning.
In May 2015, the Veteran received a private psychiatric evaluation where he reported symptoms of flashbacks, nightmares, and night sweats relating to his combat service.  He also reported an incident of military sexual trauma and noted that he was left feeling strange and upset.  The Veteran reported that he still has anger about American citizens and their treatment of Vietnam Veterans at that time, and that he is easily frustrated and less patient, which has compounded with age.  He reported being isolated and that he prefers to be home most times, as well as, symptoms of hypervigilance, and being easily startled at any loud noises.  He further reported symptoms of impaired focus and concentration, intrusive thoughts, insomnia, and impairment in his short-term memory.  
The examiner noted that the Veteran was casually dressed, cooperative, but anxious, and somewhat disheveled.  Thought process was within normal limits and the Veteran denied suicidal/homicidal ideation and audio/visual hallucinations.  The examiner further noted that the Veteran has obsessive thoughts about being safe, and noted that there are delusions.  The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and found that the Veteran has some impairment in several areas of functioning including serious impairment in relationships with friends, trust, anxiety, and thoughts about being safe.
In July 2015, the Veteran received a VA examination for PTSD where the Veteran reported experiencing traumas in the military resulting in symptoms of nightmares at least monthly, intrusive thoughts 2 to 3 times a month, irritability, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbance, exaggerated startle response, hypervigilance, and avoiding thoughts, emotions, activities, people, and places related to traumas.  He reported feeling depressed at times, but not on a regular basis, and denied suicidal ideation, delusions, and hallucinations.  Socially, he reported that he has a good relationship with his wife and family, and that he sees his children and grandchildren frequently, but that he does not have friends outside of his family.  Additionally, he reported having a loss of interest in things he used to enjoy, such as fishing.  Occupationally, the Veteran reported that he has not worked since retiring 13 years ago, and that he was burned out at his last job because of having to interact with other people.  
After evaluating the Veteran, the examiner noted that the Veteran was dressed casually, cooperative, with good hygiene.  He appeared anxious at times, but was alert, attentive, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation.  Attention and concentration appeared adequate, and recent and remote memory was intact.  Thought processes were logical and organized with no evidence of delusions, or auditory or visual hallucinations.  The examiner noted symptoms of anxiety and chronic sleep impairment. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD based on his combat trauma and military sexual trauma finding that he exhibited occupational and social impairment with an occasional decrease in work efficiency.  The examiner found that his symptoms are a progression in severity since his 2013 exam.
Considering the above and remaining evidence, the Board finds that an increased rating is not warranted for the period prior to May 2, 2015, as the Veteran’s symptoms more nearly approximated the criteria for a 30 percent rating, and no higher for this period.  The evidence shows that during this period, the Veteran has primarily reported symptoms of anxiety, dreams, intrusive thoughts, sleep disturbance, and mild depression. Socially he had good relations with his family, attended church and was active in the choir and other church activities, spent time with friends, and was on a community board. Occupationally, he had retired from the North Carolina State Capitol Police after working 27 years, and indicated he had good relations with his co-workers although the job could be stressful at times.  As noted above, the examiner in his July 2013 VA examination found that the Veteran’s symptoms were transient causing slight impairment in social and occupational functioning.  This finding is supported by the Veteran’s own reports of having a relaxed mood and his denial of feeling anxious or irritable over the past month.  Additionally, the Veteran reported that he has dreams twice a month, mild intrusive thoughts, mild depressive symptoms which are infrequent and inconsistent, and that he checks his doors and windows twice a week when he wakes.  The Board finds that these symptoms are not of the severity, frequency, or duration to equate to occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity or occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, including family relations, work, judgment, mood, thinking, and school. Nor does the Veteran present during this period with many, if any, of the listed symptoms for the 50 or 70 percent rating. Thus, a disability evaluation greater than 30 percent for the period prior to May 2, 2015, is denied.
For the period beginning on May 2, 2015, the Board finds that a 50 percent rating, but no higher, is warranted. The Veteran primarily had symptoms of nightmares, intrusive thoughts, anxiety, anger, avoidance, impaired concentration, hypervigilance, and issues with trusting others. 
In his July 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported having nightmares monthly, intrusive thoughts 2 to 3 times a month, and he denied suicidal ideation, delusions, and hallucinations.  He reported feeling depressed at times, but not on a regular basis, and that his most significant problem is pain in his feet, not trusting others, and hypervigilance.  The Board recognizes that the Veteran also endorsed symptoms of irritability, difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbance, exaggerated startle response, avoidance, and losing interest in things he used to enjoy, such as fishing, and that the examiner found that the Veteran’s symptoms had progressed in severity; however, the Board finds that his symptoms did not progress to the extent that a rating greater than 50 percent would be warranted.  
In so finding, the Board notes that the July 2015 examiner found that the Veteran’s symptoms had worsened since 2013, but that they only caused occupational and social impairment with an occasional decrease in work efficiency.  The Board notes that during his July 2015 examination, the Veteran continued to report that he has a good relationship with his wife and family, and that he sees his children and grandchildren frequently, despite his report of not having friends outside of his family.  Moreover, mental status examinations consistently showed that while the Veteran appeared anxious, he was alert, attentive, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation; attention, concentration, and recent and remote memory was intact; and, thought processes were logical and organized with no evidence of suicidal or homicidal ideation or auditory or visual hallucinations.
Likewise, in his May 2015 private psychiatric evaluation, the private examiner also noted that the Veteran was anxious and somehow disheveled; however, the Veteran was cooperative; thought process was within normal limits, and the Veteran denied suicidal/homicidal ideation and audio/visual hallucinations.  The examiner also noted that the Veteran had anxiety attacks in the past but not presently.  In addition, the examiner found that the Veteran had “some impairment” with serious impairment in relationships with friends, trust, anxiety, and thoughts about being safe; however, the examiner found that the Veteran’s symptoms have not affected his marriage and his relationship with his children is good.  Moreover, although the examiner noted that there were delusions, the examiner did not note what his delusions consisted of, nor did he note that they were of serious impairment.  Furthermore, subsequent examinations by this examiner, as well as the Veteran’s VA examinations, found no evidence of delusions.  
Further, while the private examiner’s subsequent examinations in June 2015 and September 2015 showed that the Veteran continued to exhibit anxiety, hypervigilance, a general mistrust in people, general discomfort when in a crowd, and obsessive thoughts about being safe, the examiner noted that flashbacks and nightmares occurred only when the Veteran was exposed to triggers or stressful situations.  Moreover, mental status examinations continued to show anxiety, but there was no evidence of suicidal/homicidal ideations, hallucinations, delusions, or abnormal thought process or thought content.  In sum, there is no evidence in the Veteran’s VA examinations, private examinations, or otherwise that support a finding that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms progressed to the extent that a rating greater than 50 percent was warranted for this period.  
Given the above, the Board finds the Veteran’s symptoms more nearly approximated the criteria of a 50 percent rating, and no higher.  The evidence shows that the Veteran’s primary complaints have been symptoms of anxiety, sleep impairment, hypervigilance, mistrust in others, and avoidance; while other symptoms have been reported intermittently.  While the Veteran’s private examiner noted serious impairment in his relationships with friends, trust, anxiety, and thoughts about being safe, with him being obsessed with safety; the Board does not find that these symptoms equate to the level of severity required for a 70 percent rating.  None of his reported symptoms have been of the severity, frequency, to equate to occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as school, family relations, work, mood, thinking, and judgment. His family relations have been consistently good, his thinking has been normal, his judgment has not been impaired, and although his mood has been anxious and depressed, this alone is insufficiently severe to equate to a 70 percent disability rating.  The Veteran has maintained a stable marriage for over 45 years and has a good relationship with his family. Despite the Veteran’s reports of feeling overwhelmed and burned out at his last job, he retired from law enforcement with over twenty years of stable employment, and there is no evidence that his symptoms interfered with his job as a police officer.  He has consistently denied homicidal and suicidal ideations, delusions (other than the one notation in the May 2015 examination report), and hallucinations, his speech is normal, he has not demonstrated any impulse control problems, near continuous panic, or spatial disorientation. He has overall been properly groomed with the May 2015 examiner being the only notation that indicates any problem with his grooming and that was only that he was casually dressed and somewhat disheveled. This one notation and his safety obsession do not warrant a 70 percent rating.  
Therefore, the Board concludes the Veteran’s PTSD more nearly approximated the criteria for a 30 percent rating, for the period prior to May 2, 2015, and a 50 percent rating for the period beginning on May 2, 2015. Although the Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt where the evidence is in approximate balance, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim.  38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55.


2. Entitlement to a TDIU, to include extraschedular referral.
TDIU may be assigned when a Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that the Veteran meets the schedular requirements.  If there is only one service-connected disability, this disability should be rated at 60 percent or more.  If there are two or more disabilities, at least one should be rated at 40 percent or more with sufficient additional service-connected disabilities to bring the combination to 70 percent or more.  38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a).
In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but it may not be given due to age or to any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19.
The ultimate question of whether a Veteran is capable of substantial gainful employment is not a medical one; that determination is for the adjudicator.  See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Floore v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 376, 381 (2013).  As such, the focus of the examiner is not on whether the Veteran is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities, but the functional impairment caused solely by service-connected disabilities.  VBA Fast Letter 13-13 (June 17, 2013).
The Veteran is service connected for PTSD, evaluated at 30 percent disabling prior to May 2, 2015, and 50 percent disabling from May 2, 2015; coronary artery disease, evaluated at 30 percent disabling from March 25, 2014; diabetes mellitus, type II, with erectile dysfunction, evaluated at 20 percent disabling from June 25, 2012; and left ankle residuals, evaluated at 20 percent disabling from June 25, 2012 and 10 percent disabling from September 22, 2017.  The Veteran has a combined evaluation of 60 percent from June 25, 2012, and 80 percent from May 2, 2015 based on the Board’s award herein.
In the Veteran’s case, the rating criteria for consideration of a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a) are not met for the period prior to May 2, 2015, because the Veteran does not have one disability rated at 40 percent.  They are met for the period beginning on May 2, 2015.  For the prior period, the law provides that where the percentage requirements set forth above are not met, entitlement to the benefit on an extraschedular basis may be considered when the veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities, and consideration is given to his background, including his employment and educational history.  38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b).  Under these circumstances, the claim must be submitted to the Chief Benefits Director or Director of the Compensation Service for extraschedular consideration.  Having reviewed the complete record, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against referring the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU on an extraschedular basis.
At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran has not asserted, nor does the evidence show, that the Veteran’s service-connected diabetes mellitus or erectile dysfunction precludes the Veteran from obtaining substantial gainful employment.  VA examinations from November 2012, February 2015, and October 2017 all show that the Veteran’s service-connected diabetes does not impact the Veteran’s ability to work.  Likewise, the Veteran’s October 2017 VA examination for erectile dysfunction revealed the same.  
With regard to the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle residuals, the Veteran reported in his February 2015 ankle examination that his ankle impacts his functional ability as he can only walk for 100 yards at a time before stopping to rest, he can only climb one flight of stairs at a time, and that he cannot climb a ladder.  Although the examiner in this examination provided no opinion as to functional impact, the Board notes that in the Veteran’s July 2013 VA examination, the examiner found that the Veteran’s left ankle residuals did not impact the Veteran’s ability to work.  Additionally, the Veteran himself reported that he never missed work due to his left ankle condition.  Moreover, despite his report of constant pain in his November 2017 VA examination, the examiner found that the Veteran’s left ankle would not impact the Veteran’s ability to work.  
The Board notes that, assuming arguendo, even if a determination was made that the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle impacted his ability to work, it would likely merely impact his ability to obtain physical employment as the Veteran’s educational background, which includes a Bachelor’s degree in Public Administration, combined with his work experience as a police officer, would not preclude him from obtaining sedentary employment.  
Concerning the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD and its impact on his employability, the evidence shows that the Veteran’s PTSD initially caused mild impairment prior to May 2, 2015, with a subsequent increase to moderate impairment. Although the Veteran’s private examiner found serious impairment in relationships with friends, trust, anxiety, and thoughts about being safe, there is no evidence that these symptoms or any other reported symptoms would preclude the Veteran from obtaining substantial gainful employment.  As mentioned, the Veteran maintained stable employment to retirement, and reported that he got along with co-workers and was never fired.  Likewise, the Veteran reported never missing work due to his ankle.  There is no evidence of record to suggest that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities have increased in severity such that they would render him unable to obtain substantial gainful employment.
(Continued on the next page)
 
Accordingly, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities render the Veteran unemployable.  Accordingly, for the period prior to May 2, 2015, referral to the Director of the Compensation Service for consideration of entitlement to an extraschedular TDIU is not warranted, and for the period after May 2, 2015, the criteria for TDIU are not met.
 
GAYLE STROMMEN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	K. Laffitte, Associate Counsel 

For A Complete Guide To VA Disability Claims and to find out more about your potential VA disability case and how to obtain favorable VA Rating Decision! Visit: VA-Claims.org

For More Information on Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits! Visit: DisableVeteran.org ~ A Non-Profit Non Governmental Agency


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.