Caring. Effective. Efficient.

BVA failed to consider PTSD Rating greater than 50%

BVA failed to consider PTSD Rating greater than 50%

"Symptom hunting"  is a common BVA error in a PTSD rating appeal, and we believed the BVA engaged in this practice when it denied our client anything more than a 50 percent PTSD rating. 

Here's how it happens: using the  list of examples of rateable symptoms in the VA's mental health diagnostic code, the BVA judge hunts through the record for those exact symptoms.

The problem with this approach is that assigning a PTSD rating is not a mechanical exercise - the BVA judge is required to conduct a "holistic analysis" of the Veteran's condition before assigning a rating. This requires evaluating - and comparing - the PTSD symptoms the veteran does have, and comparing their frequency, chronicity and severity to the VA's rating criteria for PTSD. 

In this case, the BVA judge hunted for symptoms to support a 50 percent PTSD rating, and to deny TDIU. 

After an extensive record review, and detailing the symptoms the veteran had which were not considered when the BVA judge assigned the 50 percent PTSD rating, the parties agreed to vacate the BVA decision and send it back through a Joint Motion to Remand.

Does this case sound like your VA Rating Decision or BVA Decision? If so, click here to have  Attig | Steel take a look at your case.

Link to the BVA Decision on CAVC Website.

Link to the Joint Motion to Remand the CAVC Website.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Shereen M. Marcus

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Chris Attig (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge: Derek R. Brown

Regional Office: Montgomery, Alabama VARO

Vets’ Rep at BVA:  Adam Werner

Date of BVA Decision: March 15, 2016

Date of CAVC Judgment on Remand: January 21, 2017

Recent Cases

This case involves an Army veteran who served on active duty in 1991 and then from 2008 to 2009 who was seeking a service-connected major depressive disorder rating in excess of 30%. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON… Read More
This case involves a survivor’s claim for entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). The appellant’s late-husband served in the US Air Force from 1964 – 1984, and passed away from a rare form of non-Hodgkins lymphom… Read More
This case involved a US Army veteran (1967 to 1971) who was seeking service connection for hypertension, congestive heart failure, Type II diabetes, stroke, and atrial fibrillation due to agent orange exposure in Thailand during the Vietnam war. The… Read More

See More Appellate Results

Taking Point! Blog

Mar
2
In January 2021, the loss of use of a reproductive organ for SMC purposes was the focus of a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Bria v. Wilkie.   The panel consisted of Judge Mere… Read More
Feb
26
In January 2021, the VA rating for prostate cancer was the focus of a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Bailey v. Wilkie.   The panel consisted of Chief Judge Bartley (who… Read More
Feb
26
  Bold and unapologetically honest, Pam Keith is a refreshing political voice you need to follow right now.  She smoothly articulates the most rocky and controversial topics of our time.  It is no surprise that this attorney with 25 years of expe… Read More
Feb
12
In November 2020, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Holmes v. Wilkie.   In it, the Court laid out a road map for Veterans trying to get the correct VA rating for migraines… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog