Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-834, Braun v. McDonough (BVA denied TDIU rating due to PTSD)

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-834, Braun v. McDonough (BVA denied TDIU rating due to PTSD)

This case involves a Marine veteran (1985 to 1991) who sought a TDIU 100 percent rating for his service-connected PTSD.

The appeal to the CAVC was resolved through a joint motion to remand. 

ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA denied TDIU rating due to PTSD).

The BVA is required to provide, in every TDIU appeal, a statement of adequate reasons and bases for its conclusion that a veteran is not entitled to TDIU. 38 U.S.C. §7104(d). TDIU is a 100 percent rating given to veterans who are unable to get and keep substantially gainful activity due to their service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §4.16.  

A TDIU rating is part and parcel of any appeal for the maximum PTSD rating when there is cogent evidence of unemployability in, or reasonably raised by, the record.

In this case, the BVA denied the veteran a TDIU rating for his service connected PTSD

RESOLUTION AT THE CAVC.

The parties agreed that the BVA erred and joined in a motion to vacate the BVA decision and remand it to the BVA for readjudication.

The BVA erred in two ways in this appeal.

First, the BVA's analysis as to why the veteran was not entitled to a TDIU rating due to service connected PTSD was limited to a single sentence, and contained no explanation of its reasoning for concluding that the veteran's PTSD did not prevent him from getting and keeping substantially gainful employment.

Second, the BVA erred when it relied on and adopted the findings of the VA C&P examiner's  report without providing its own analysis. The BVA often forgets that it is the BVA's job to make legal and factual determinations, and the C&P examiner's job to provide only a medical opinion. The BVA always has to weigh evidence for and against the claim.

If you have been denied a TDIU rating due to your service-connected PTSD - or any service connected condition or conditions, and would like help appealing to the BVA or to the CAVC, click here to have  Attig | Curran | Steel take a look at your case.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Nathan Kirschner (link to attorney's bio on LinkedIn)

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Alexandra Curran  (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge:  Paul Sorisio (link to bio on FederalPay.org)

Attorney for the BVA: K. Cruz

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Stacey Clark, Attorney (Morgan & Morgan) (link to attorney's bio)

Date of BVA Decision: June 21, 2019

Date of CAVC Joint Motion to Remand: February 11, 2021

Link to BVA Decision

Link to CAVC Joint Motion to Remand

 

Taking Point! Blog

Jun
3
I really can’t take it anymore. I’m sure many like you feel the same way. Every time another child with a military weapon ambushes a school full of children, I am overwhelmed with emotions that have no outlet. I can’t even process… Read More
May
27
  While on our way to the nutcracker audition at the local theatre I asked my 9-year-old daughter how her day went at school. “It was okay.  We had another active shooter drill.  When the drill started, I had to run behind and under my teacher… Read More
May
23
After years of exploring different fields, I’ve found purpose-driven work here, at Attig | Curran | Steel.   There are a lot of variables in the experience of “happy.” It is difficult to keep it continuous.  Do I feel happy when my kids… Read More
May
18
When appellate courts review the decisions of lower courts – or in administrative law where a Court like the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) reviews the decisions of the BVA, an administrative tribunal – they use “… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog

Recent Cases

This case involves the BVA judge’s inadequate reasoning of a denial of a veteran’s claim for an increased rating for PTSD.   The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA overlooked evidence… Read More
This case involves the BVA judge’s inadequate reasoning of his denial of a veteran’s past-due benefits in a claim for an increased rating due to an increase in the severity of the veteran’s PTSD. The appeal was resolved through a jo… Read More
This case involves the BVA’s failure to comply with a Veterans Court Order in a January 2020 Memorandum Decision. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA fails to comply with Veterans Court Ord… Read More

See More Appellate Results