Citation Nr: 18143447 Decision Date: 10/23/18 Archive Date: 10/19/18 DOCKET NO. 12-18 347 DATE: October 23, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability from January 19, 2010 to September 14, 2014 is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran was unemployable from January 19, 2010 to September 14, 2014. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability from January 19, 2010 to September 14, 2014 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1968 to November 1969. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability from January 19, 2010 to September 14, 2014 TDIU is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 4.16, providing that such a rating may be assigned where the scheduler rating is less than total, and when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities. If there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). As of January 19, 2010, the Veteran was service connected for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rated at 30 percent; coronary artery disease status post 4 vessel bypass and 2 stents/ischemic heart disease [agent orange Vietnam/ischemic heart disease] rated at 30 percent; residuals of shell fragment wound to left ankle with retained foreign body rated at 20 percent; Type II diabetes mellitus [agent orange/diabetes] rated at 20 percent; sensory deficit to the left side of the face due to shell fragment wound rated at 10 percent; residual of shell fragment wound to right knee with retained foreign body rated at 10 percent; residuals of shell fragment wound to left thigh rated at 10 percent; residuals of shell fragment wound to left should and arm rated at 10 percent; and left mandible fracture with malunion due to shell fragment wound rated as noncompensable. The Veteran disability rating as of January 19, 2010 was 80 percent and the Veteran’s ischemic heart disease and diabetes both being the product of his agent orange exposure (i.e. sharing the same etiology) are considered for the purpose of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 to be one disability thereby meeting the “at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more” requirement. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Veteran’s educational history include some high school, and his work history is limited to manual labor. The only remaining issue is whether the Veteran was able to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service connected disability. On this issue the Board finds the June 28, 2018 Vocational Examination from a private examiner to be probative. The private examiner cited the Veteran’s Social Security Administration Work Active Form from December 2006 and January 2006 VA examination and outlined how the Veteran’s service connected physical disabilities had limited the Veteran’s occupational functioning to sedentary tasks. The examiner went on to cite the Veteran’s Social Security Disability Report from 2007 and an August 8, 2008 clinical assessment of the Veteran’s PTSD wherein it was noted that the Veteran had difficulty learning new tasks and sustained concentration. Finally, the examiner concluded that given the Veteran’s limited formal education and limited labor-intensive work history coupled with the unique limitations of his service connected disabilities rendered the Veteran unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Board finds that the private examiner opinion is well reasoned with documented evidence in the claims file which supports her conclusion. The Board notes that the Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims (Court) has held that the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning and the Board must be able to conclude that a medical expert has applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the particular case in order to reach the conclusion submitted in the medical opinion. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). (Continued on the next page)   Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to a TDIU from January 19, 2010, the date in which VA received his claim for unemployability. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Acosta