Citation Nr: 18157874 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 15-20 058 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Restoration of a 100 percent rating for Grave's Disease (also known as hypothyroidism) is granted. FINDING OF FACT At the time of the August 14, 2014 rating decision reducing the rating for the Veteran’s Grave’s Disease to 10 percent, the evidence did not show that the Veteran’s Grave’s Disease had improved under the ordinary conditions of life and work. CONCLUSION OF LAW The 100 percent rating for Grave's Disease (also known as hypothyroidism) is restored. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(e), 3.344, 4.10, 4.119, Diagnostic Code 7903. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1978 to May 1991. A hearing in this matter was held before the undersigned veterans law judge in July 2016 in Fort Harrison, Montana. The transcript is of record. 1. Entitlement to restoration of a 100 percent rating for Grave's Disease (also known as hypothyroidism) In any case involving a rating reduction, the fact-finder must ascertain, based upon a review of the entire record, whether the evidence reflects an actual change in the disability and whether the examination reports reflecting such change are based upon a thorough examination. To warrant a reduction, it must be determined not only that an improvement in the disability level has actually occurred, but also that such improvement actually reflects an improvement in the ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work. Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413, 420-21 (1993) (citing 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, 4.13). In addressing whether improvement is shown, the comparison point generally is the last examination on which the rating at issue was assigned or continued. Hohol v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 169 (1992). However, if the rating was continued in order to see if improvement was in fact shown, the comparison point could include prior examinations as well. Collier v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 247 (1992). The reduction of a rating generally must have been supported by the evidence on file at the time of the reduction, but pertinent post-reduction evidence favorable to restoring the rating must also be considered. Dofflemeyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 277 (1992). If there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material issue, all reasonable doubt shall be resolved in favor of the Veteran. In other words, a rating reduction must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (a); see also Brown, 5 Vet. App. at 421. The Board notes that VA benefits recipients are to be afforded greater protections in instances where a rating has been in effect at the same level for more than five years. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (a)-(c). However, in this case, the 100 percent rating was granted effective December 5, 2011, and the rating was reduced to 10 percent effective November 1, 2014, less than three years later. Therefore, the extra protections for ratings in effect five years or more do not apply. The 100 percent rating was granted based on a December 2011 VA examination. At that examination the examiner noted that the Veteran displayed symptoms of fatigability, mental sluggishness, weight gain, sleepiness, cold intolerance, and dry skin on her arms and legs. The Veteran received another VA examination in May 2013. The examiner stated that the Veteran denied any negative impact on activities of daily living or occupational pursuits, and that she reported her hobbies as whitewater rafting and motorcycling. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s only symptom was cold intolerance. On the basis of the May 2013 examination, the RO issued a rating decision in January 2014 proposing reduction of the Veteran’s rating for Grave’s Disease from 100 percent to 10 percent. In response, the Veteran submitted a statement recounting her current symptoms. She reported that she told the examiner that she used to go whitewater rafting and motorcycling, but that she had given up both activities due to fatigue and nausea. She also reported difficulty focusing at work, muscle weakness, depression and anxiety, and weight gain. The RO reduced the Veteran’s rating to 10 percent in an August 2014 rating decision. The 10 percent rating was effective November 1, 2014. It appears that the examination that was used to reduce the evaluation was primarily based upon the statements of the Veteran, rather than objective testing. Her testimony was to the effect that there had been no significant change and that the examination report may not have been accurate. Furthermore, subsequently, there was an examination addressing psychiatric issues. As to whether there was a disorder associated with the service connected disability or a separate disorder, the conclusion was less than certain. This after the fact report does not support a reduction, rather, it casts doubt on the adequacy of prior examination. Given the evidence available at the time of the August 2014 rating decision, the Board finds that reduction was not proper, as it was not shown that the Veteran’s condition had improved under the ordinary conditions of life and work. Although the May 2013 examiner reported fewer symptoms than the December 2011 examiner, the Veteran reported the same symptoms throughout the period. The May 2013 examiner did not note or address the Veteran’s reports of symptoms other than cold intolerance. Therefore, the examination was inadequate to form the basis of a rating reduction. Improvement under the ordinary conditions of life and work was not shown. The rating is therefore restored to 100 percent. Stated differently, the examination report that was the basis of the decision was primarily based upon lay evidence. The appellant has credibly reported that there has been no significant change. The record, as it stands, does not support a reduction. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Creegan, Associate Counsel