Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-5734, Brown-Leonard v. McDonough (Major depressive disorder rating)

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-5734, Brown-Leonard v. McDonough (Major depressive disorder rating)

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 APPEAL TO THE CAVC (Major depressive disorder rating) 

A major depressive disorder rating is established using the criteria in the VA Schedule of Ratings for psychiatric disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §4.130. A veteran establishes a major depressive disorder rating by demonstrating the severity, frequency and durations of symptoms on that rating schedule. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

One of the criteria for  a 70% major depressive disorder rating is the presence of suicidal ideation. Bankhead v. Shinseki, 29 Vet. App. 10 (2017). Suicidal ideation includes passing thoughts of suicide, that life would be better without you, wishing you were dead, daydreaming about being dead - thoughts are ideation. To establish a 70% rating, a veteran does not need to show suicide plans or attempts; the presence of suicidal ideation - alone may cause occupational or social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. 

RESOLUTION AT THE CAVC.

The BVA failed to discuss a medical  evidence and medical evaluation reports that, since at least 2015, the veteran experienced major depressive disorder symptoms such as depressed mood, diminished interest, loss of appetite, insomnia, fatigue and loss of energy, diminished concentration, and recurrent thoughts of suicidal ideation. The veteran had been referred for psychiatric treatment specifically for suicidal ideation in 2014. 

When evaluating the evidence for the veteran's major depressive disorder rating, the BVA commented that the veteran's suicide was merely "fleeting suicidal ideation, without intention or plan."

The parties agreed that the BVA erred when it required evidence of more than thoughts of suicide to support a 70% major depressive disorder rating.

To be clear: veterans NEVER need to show suicidal intent or plan. And there is no such thing as "fleeting" suicidal ideation. Suicidal ideation is the existence of mere thoughts of suicide.  

If you believe the VA or BVA has low-balled your major depressive disorder rating, or if you experience suicidal ideation as a symptom of any service connected psychiatric condition that the VA or BVA ignored, click here to have  Attig | Curran | Steel take a look at your case.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Shekeba Morrad (link to attorney's bio on LinkedIn)

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

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge:  Kalpana M. Parakkal (link to bio on Federal Pay website)

Attorney for the BVA: Kristen J. Kunz (we believe this is the attorney's LinkedIn bio - if we are wrong, email us and let us know)

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Matthew D. Hill (link to attorney bio on LinkedIn)

Date of BVA Decision:April 17, 2020

Date of CAVC Joint Motion to Remand:   March 3, 2021

Link to BVA Decision

Link to CAVC Joint Motion to Remand

 

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