Citation Nr: 20008530 Decision Date: 01/31/20 Archive Date: 01/31/20 DOCKET NO. 18-23 910 DATE: January 31, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to an initial rating of 100 percent for the entire period on appeal for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to a service-connected disability (TDIU) is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the entire period on appeal, the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD has been productive of total occupational and social impairment. 2. The Veteran is in receipt of a 100 percent schedular rating for service-connected PTSD; there is no evidence of record that a TDIU is warranted based on other service-connected disabilities alone without consideration of his PTSD. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial rating of 100 percent for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2019). 2. The Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a TDIU is moot. Vettese v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 31 (1994); Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from April 1995 to April 1998. These matters come before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in June 2019, at which time the issues currently on appeal were remanded for additional development. This case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Board notes that on January 2, 2020, the Veteran requested the withdrawal of his claim to entitlement for an increased initial rating for PTSD. The brief request lacked any reasoning of why the Veteran was withdrawing his claim. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran may not fully understand the consequences of his actions, in particular the more beneficial decision to award a 100 percent rating for his PTSD contained herein. Therefore, the Board deems the Veteran’s withdrawal as invalid and will proceed with adjudication of the case. See Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1014-15 (Fed. Cir. 2018); DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (2011). Increased Rating – PTSD The Veteran has contended that the symptoms of his PTSD are worse than those contemplated by the currently assigned rating. Specifically, the Veteran claims that his PTSD has negatively impacted his ability to work, resulting in his unemployment since 2010. At a June 2010 mental health consultation, the Veteran revealed to a VA Psychiatrist that he stayed away from his children to keep from doing hurtful things to others or himself. In addition, the Veteran stated that he experienced issues with authority due to trauma he sustained during active service. The Veteran was initially afforded a VA psychiatric examination in September 2010. The VA psychiatrist assessed that the Veteran had no social dysfunction, but also noted that the Veteran had a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others. In fact, the VA psychiatrist indicated that the Veteran’s disregard was exhibited by his repeated physical assaults (to include the domestic abuse of his then wife) and his lack of regard for the safety of himself or others. In a November 2010 statement, the Veteran’s wife stated that the Veteran’s growing temper, mood swings, and anger caused her to fear for her life. Additionally, the Veteran’s wife stated that his constant paranoia and 15 job changes since leaving active-service caused her and their four children to move away. Subsequently, in November 2010, the Veteran also made a statement that he was unable to maintain a loving relationship with his wife and children, or communication with his family, and as such, he lived alone and in misery. In May 2011, the Veteran reported that he had worked about 20 different jobs since being discharged from active service, most lasting only a few months. During a November 2011 consultation, the Veteran stated that he was not able to hold his previous job positions because of his increased anger, frustration, paranoia, and fear. Additionally, in February 2012 the Veteran stated that he did not visit his estranged family due to fears of harm coming upon them if he were to get into a fight with someone. In May 2012, a staff psychologist at a VA medical treatment facility stated that the Veteran’s relationships tended to be easily strained and required an unusual degree of support and assistance in order to succeed. In addition, the psychologist stated that getting even with objects of resentment may have been major preoccupations for the Veteran. The Veteran was afforded another VA psychiatric examination in March 2013. The Veteran informed the examiner, a VA psychologist, that he was discharged from a residential substance abuse program because he got into an altercation. The Veteran also informed the examiner that he did not work because he did not like being around a lot of people. Despite the Veteran’s statements, the VA examiner ultimately concluded that his mental condition was not severe enough to interfere with occupational and social functioning. However, in April 2015, a VA staff psychiatrist stated that the Veteran would not be safe to function appropriately in a regular demanding work situation, as others (such as co-workers and supervisors) may not be able to deal with him. The staff psychiatrist ultimately concluded that the Veteran did not then, nor would he in the foreseeable future, have the capability of obtaining and holding gainful employment due to his mental health symptoms. In August 2016, a private clinical psychologist opined that the Veteran’s mental health symptoms had led to severe social self-isolation. The private clinical psychologist assessed that the Veteran’s self-isolation was highly disruptive of his daily functioning, and clearly not conducive to him maintaining gainful employment in any capacity. In a March 2017 rehabilitation note, the Veteran stated that he was unable to bring himself to perform volunteer work and that because of his depression he did not leave his house much. Subsequently, in a March 2018 affidavit, the Veteran stated that he was triggered by rude comments from coworkers and that he had a strong distrust for others out of a fear that people were trying to manipulate him. The Veteran also stated that his feelings had resulted in verbal altercations when he worked, which occurred at least three times per week. Additionally, the Veteran stated that his depression led to him missing work without authorization at least two to three times per month. Finally, the Veteran stated that he was no longer able to have simple conversations with people because he became angry and aggressive too easily. The Veteran’s statements were confirmed in an April 2019 statement from the Veteran’s aunt, who is a mother figure to him. The Veteran’s aunt stated that the Veteran made her cry a lot and that he no longer wanted to be around people. She also stated that the Veteran always believed that someone was out to get him, and that his family was scared to talk to him. In June 2019 program note, the Veteran mirrored his aunt’s sentiments by revealing that he increasingly isolated himself to avoid triggers that could precipitate angry outbursts. In July 2019 the Veteran was afforded another VA psychiatric examination. The examiner, a VA psychologist, stated that it would be speculation to differentiate the symptoms and level of social and occupational impairment attributable to the Veteran’s PTSD alone. However, the examiner did note that the Veteran should be considered an increased risk regarding his suicidal ideations. The Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to an initial 100 percent rating for his PTSD. In this regard, the Veteran’s PTSD is manifested by total social and occupational impairment. The Veteran experiences significant and debilitating symptoms of PTSD to include paranoia, hypervigilance, isolation, anxiousness, depressive episodes, suicidal ideations and attempts, violent tendencies, and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Additionally, there is no evidence in the record that the Veteran would interact appropriately, or exercise good judgment and impulse control, with others in an occupational setting. The Veteran is estranged from his family and they are afraid of him, and appears to have very little social contact. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms more close approximate total impairment, and an initial 100 percent rating is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2019). The Board acknowledges that the VA examination results, private psychological opinions, mental health treatment records, and lay statements do not account for each symptom associated with a 100 percent rating for PTSD. However, the enumerated symptoms under the schedule for rating mental disorders are not exhaustive and are only intended to serve as examples and degrees of the symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular disability rating. Therefore, a finding that the Veteran has total social and occupational impairment is sufficient to support a 100 percent rating for the entire period on appeal. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim is at least in equipoise. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to an initial rating of 100 percent for PTSD is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). TDIU As stated previously, the Veteran has been awarded a rating of 100 percent from May 24, 2010, for his PTSD. The Court has recognized that a 100 percent rating under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities means that a Veteran is totally disabled. Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443, 446 (1994), citing Swan v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 20, 22 (1990). Generally, if the VA has found a veteran to be totally disabled as a result of a particular service-connected disability or a combination of disabilities pursuant to the rating schedule, there is no need, and no authority to otherwise rate that Veteran totally disabled on any other basis. Herlehy v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 33, 35 (2001). However, a grant of 100 percent rating does not always render the issue of TDIU moot. In Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008), the Court determined that a separate TDIU rating predicated on one disability may be awarded if that disability is not ratable at the schedular 100 percent level. However, a separate TDIU rating cannot be awarded based on one service-connected disability if the Veteran is already receiving a 100 percent schedular rating for that disorder. Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242 (2010). In this case, the Veteran has been awarded a 100 percent disability rating for PTSD for the entire period on appeal. The Veteran has reported that the only disability that impacts his ability to work is his PTSD. He is not service-connected for any other disability that alone, without consideration of his PTSD, prevents him from obtaining and maintaining gainful employment. Therefore, the findings in Bradley are not applicable in this case, and the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is moot as the Veteran is in receipt of a schedular 100 percent rating for PTSD for the entire period on appeal. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Byrd, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.