Caring. Effective. Efficient.

BVA Failed to Consider 70 PTSD Rating criteria

BVA Failed to Consider 70 PTSD Rating criteria

The law firm of Hill and Ponton approached Attig | Steel after the BVA judge denied their veteran a higher 70 percent PTSD rating. They had put a lot of work and energy into helping a veteran, and the BVA decision seemed to gloss over their thorough presentation of PTSD symptomatology.

This case had 2 major issues - both of which were fixed by Attig | Steel on appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims:

1) the BVA did not consider a 70 percent PTSD rating (or higher) for this veteran's service connected PTSD, and,

2) the BVA decision rating the veteran's vertigo under a rating code that did not maximize the veteran's disability compensation.

First, the BVA did not consider the 70 percent PTSD rating criteria, such as the veteran's  suicidal ideation or auditory hallucinations. (While a 70 percent PTSD rating does not require suicidal ideation, the BVA errs when it does not consider, holistically, the symptoms of a veteran's PTSD).

In granting a 30 percent PTSD rating for one part of a rating period and a 50 percent PTSD rating for another part, the BVA also failed to consider that the veteran's PTSD medication caused him to sleep 15-16 hours at a time and  required he seek a reduced work schedule.

The BVA did not consider (people calling his name and warning him) and “seeing visions in the past”, and that other PTSD symptoms were more severe than assessed in the BVA  decision:

  • suicidal ideation
  • problems with memory
  • sleep or cognitive processing
  • irritability with temper problems
  • cognitive difficulties
  • mood, temper and temperament problems
  • multiple divorces
  • concerns of domestic violence
  • notation of a poisoned relationship with his immediate family members
  • a severe impact on the veteran's ability to work.

Second, the BVA erred when it rated the veteran's unlisted vertigo under a Diagnostic Code (DC) 6204, which is used to evaluate peripheral vestibular disorders.  Because the condition more closely approximated Meniere's Syndrome, the BVA erred when it failed to consider a higher rating under the provisions of DC 6205 (Meniere’s syndrome). Instead, the BVA found  DC 6205 did not apply because Appellant was not diagnosed with Meniere’s syndrome: a classic BVA misunderstanding of the concept of "rating by analogy".

Attig | Steel coordinated with the law firm of Hill & Ponton to handle the veteran's remand to the BVA. 

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: Michael G. Imber

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

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge:Matthew W. Blackwelder

Regional Office: St. Petersburg, Florida VARO

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Sara K. Hill (link to bio)

Date of BVA Decision: February 23, 2017

Date of CAVC Judgment on Remand: December 21, 2017

 

Recent Cases

This case involves a veteran’s appeal to the BVA seeking service connection for arthritis.  The veteran served in the US Air Force from 2005 to 2006. He injured his knee and other parts of his body when required to move heavy appliances into a… Read More
Attorney Chris Attig has been working with this veteran’s survivor for half a decade to get her DIC and survivor’s accrued benefits properly awarded.  The veteran was a 3 decade military veteran, who fought not only in Thailand during th… Read More
  This case involves the BVA’s rating of a veteran’s service connected knee injury and a BVA credibility finding; our client appealed the BVA’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim (CAVC). The appeal was res… Read More

See More Appellate Results

VA Form 21 Blog

Jan
17
One of our clients’ cases, Martinez v. Wilkie, No 17-1551, was recently set for a panel decision by the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).We are not yet sure if there will be supplemental briefing or oral argument at this time. I… Read More
Nov
26
Today’s video starts off with an overview of a recent precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case of Moody v. Wilkie, Cause No. 16-1707. Click here to read the CAVC’s panel decision in Moody v. Wi… Read More

Read the VA Form 21 Blog