Citation Nr: 18140726 Decision Date: 10/05/18 Archive Date: 10/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-29 168 DATE: October 5, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (previously rated as anxiety disorder) is denied. FINDING OF FACT For the entire appeal period, the Veteran did not have total social and occupational impairment due to his PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD have not been met at any time during the appeal period. 38 U.S.C. §1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.40, 3.341, 4.16, 4.19, 4.25, 4.25 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1966 to January 1969. In April 2017, the Veteran provided sworn testimony at a live videoconference hearing chaired by the undersigned. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Preliminarily, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has previously asserted that his psychiatric symptomatology rendered him unemployable. A claim for total disability individual unemployability was adjudicated and denied in September 2017. The Veteran failed to appeal this claim, and therefore it is not addressed herein. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issue with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Merits The Veteran contends that his PTSD warrants a complete 100 percent disability rating. The Board finds that for the entire appeal period, the Veteran did not have total social and occupational impairment, and therefore, a 100 percent rating is not warranted. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate Diagnostic Codes (DCs) identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2017). Although a disability must be considered in the context of the whole recorded history, including service treatment records, the present level of disability is of primary concern in determining the current rating to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). If a disability has undergone varying and distinct levels of severity throughout the claims period, staged ratings may be assigned. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. A 70 percent rating is assigned with an 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 worklike setting); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 DC 9411. A 100 percent is warranted for 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; inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 DC 9411. Review of the record is negative for examination, clinical, or lay evidence supporting entitlement to a 100 percent rating. As to examination evidence, in October 2014, the Veteran submitted a PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) prepared by his healthcare provider, K.D., L.C.S.W. K.D. indicated the Veteran had problems with social isolation, specifically withdrawing from others and maintaining close relationships. K.D. also noted that he was dismissed from his previous employer because of an inability to perform as well as confronting a supervisor. Notwithstanding these notations, K.D. did not find that the Veteran was totally occupationally and socially impaired. Rather, she found him to have only occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and/or mood. Thereafter, following February 2015 VA examination, a VA examiner determined the Veteran had occupational and social impairment resulting in only occasional decreased work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. Nevertheless, he was deemed to generally function satisfactorily with normal routine behavior, self-care, and conversation. On examination the Veteran reported having a friend, a former coworker, for 35 years who he regularly met with for dinner. He also essentially reported successfully maintaining a, at minimum, business relationship with a woman renting a room in his home. A review of a June 2012 VA examination report clarifies this woman to be a former significant other of the Veteran. On April 2017 Board videoconference hearing, the Veteran testified to maintaining relationships, albeit limited, with family members including his son, grandchildren, and siblings. He testified to having terminated the rental relationship with his tenant; instead preferring to live alone. He noted that prior to termination his tenant agreement had been on-going for between 7 to 9 years. As to occupational status, the Veteran reported maintaining employment for past three years with the same company. However, he specified wanting to resign from this position within three months due to difficulties with anxiety, memory, and concentration. On August 2017 VA Examination, the Veteran confirmed his resignation from his former place of employment. He reasserted that he found “it very difficult to do the job based on the changing technology [and] changing…systems;” and therefore resigned. Despite the Veteran’s reported difficulties occupationally, he confirmed maintaining social relationships. He reported still having a friend and engaging in monthly dinners with that individual. He also reported seeing his son and grandsons, and getting along well with his siblings. Following examination and review, the examiner determined the Veteran was not totally occupationally and socially impaired. Instead, the examiner categorized his collective intertwined symptoms as resulting in only occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. As to clinical records, review of the evidence is duplicative of the aforementioned. See VAMC Denver and Eastern Colorado HCS Records. The collective evidence of record is unsupportive of the Veteran having gross impairment in thought process or communication, persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, or inability to perform activities of daily living. Lastly, given the Veteran’s consistent reports of social relationships and employment history, the lay evidence also fails to support total occupational and social impairment. In sum, the record reflects that the Veteran has maintained some forms of socialization with friends, family, and to a limited extent coworkers throughout the appeal. Moreover, no medical professional, including his own primary care provider, has opined that the Veteran’s collective symptomatology renders him totally occupationally and socially impaired. In that regard, the Veteran’s ability to maintain consistent employment for three years and to live in close quarters with an individual for a significant portion of the appeal period speaks to the accuracy of the medical professionals’ determinations that he was not totally impaired. Accordingly, the Board finds that for the entire period on appeal, the Veteran’s symptoms most closely aligned with the criteria for a 70 percent rating, and a 100 percent rating is not warranted. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. L. Burroughs, Associate Counsel