Citation Nr: 18142755 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 14-24 832 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities result in the inability to obtain and sustain substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1011, 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on period of active duty in the United States Navy from May 1964 to May 1967 and from June 1967 to October 1970. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board) from a June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. The Veteran appeared at a Travel Board hearing in November 2015 before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. This matter was previously before the Board in June 2016. At that time, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches and entitlement to a TDIU. Upon remand, the Veteran was granted service connection for migraine headaches at a 30 percent disability rating, effective January 31, 2011. The remaining issue of entitlement to a TDIU has returned to the Board. TDIU The Veteran first indicated that he wished to be granted a TDIU in February 2013, when he submitted an application for increased compensation based on unemployability. In the Veteran’s notice of disagreement with the June 2013 rating decision, which denied service connection for migraine headaches and granted service connection for PTSD at a 50 percent disability rating, effective August 9, 2012, the Veteran indicated that he thought he should have been granted a TDIU based on the combined effects of his disabilities. This statement indicates that the TDIU claim was essentially an appeal of the PTSD rating, attaching to the date of claim for that claim. Therefore, the Board will be evaluating the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU from August 9, 2012, forward. A TDIU may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, disabilities resulting from a common etiology or a single accident will be considered as one disability; and disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, will be considered as one disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). In determining whether the Veteran is entitled to TDIU, neither his non-service-connected disabilities nor his age may be considered. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993); 38 C.F.R. § 3.341(a). Here, the Veteran has met the schedular requirements for a TDIU rating for the entire period on appeal. He is service connected for PTSD at a 50 percent rating, migraine headaches at a 30 percent rating, tinnitus at a 10 percent rating, and bilateral hearing loss at a zero percent (noncompensable) rating. The Veteran’s combined rating is 70 percent. The Veteran has not been employed the entire period on appeal. The Veteran last worked in 2005 as a parking lot attendant. He has stated that he left his job because he was becoming too easily irritated with his coworkers and felt like he was going to respond with violence. The Veteran’s most recent VA examination for PTSD in March 2015 indicated that his PTSD resulted in a moderate to severe impairment in an employment setting. The examiner noted his self-isolation, difficulty in sustaining relationships, and irritability. The examiner also noted that the Veteran’s symptoms had a greater impact in an employment setting than in a social setting. The examiner indicated that the Veteran was not receiving treatment for PTSD and without treatment the Veteran would be unlikely to be successfull in an employment setting. The Veteran’s most recent VA examination for migraine headaches was in May 2013. At that examination it was noted that the Veteran had characteristic prostrating headaches more often than once a month. The examiner also characterized them as being very frequent and prolonged attacks. The Veteran has testified that they happen multiple times per week. The Veteran’s hearing loss and tinnitus were examined in April 2013, and noted the Veteran’s symptoms resulted in difficulty hearing others if he was not facing the person talking. The combined effects of these service connected disabilities, portrays a disability picture where the Veteran is unable to function in an employment environment where he would have to interact with others on a regular basis due to his PTSD symptoms and hearing difficulties. These symptoms would likely reduce the fields of employment significantly considering the need to interact with others, including supervisors, in most fields of employment. Further, if the Veteran found employment in the limited field where he would not have to interact with others, he would be expected to miss multiple days per week due to his very frequent and prolonged prostrating migraine attacks. Even if an employer tolerated these frequent absences, it would significantly limit the number of hours he could work, raising a question as to if he could earn gainful employment. Given this combination of limitations, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran is rendered unable to obtain or sustain gainful employment due solely to his service-connected disabilities and entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability is warranted. K. J. ALIBRANDO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Reed, Associate Counsel