Citation Nr: 21002763 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-12 599 DATE: January 14, 2021 ORDER Service connection for right ear hearing loss is denied. A compensable rating for left ear hearing loss is denied. A disability rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), prior to February 24, 2020, is denied. A total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) from April 7, 2014 to February 24, 2020, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of right ear hearing loss as defined by VA regulations, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis prior to the filing of a claim. 2. For the entire period on appeal, left ear hearing loss has been manifested by no more than Level I hearing acuity. 3. At no time prior to February 24, 2020 was the Veteran’s PTSD shown to have been manifested by symptoms greater than productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas; symptoms of PTSD productive of total social impairment are not shown prior to that date. 4. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, PTSD precluded substantially gainful employment from April 7, 2014 to February 24, 2020. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § § 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 2. The criteria for a compensable rating for left ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.385, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.85, 4.86, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6100, Tables VI, VII. 3. A rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD, prior to February 24, 2020, is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 4. The criteria for a TDIU from April 7, 2014 to February 24, 2020 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.1, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1980 to September 1983 and from October 2004 to January 2006. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in May 2015 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Des Moines, Iowa. The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing held in November 2019. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. There issues were previously before the Board in February 2020, at which time they were remanded for further development. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with its prior remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Finally, the Board notes that the issues of entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability and a right big toe condition were remanded by the Board in February 2020. In a September 2020 rating decision, service connection was granted for these disabilities, representing a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal. Thus, they are no longer before the Board. See generally Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Service Connection - Right Ear Hearing Loss Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A claim for service connection requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement of a current disability is satisfied when the Veteran has a disability at the time he files his service connection claim or during the pendency of that claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). However, when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran’s filing of a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of the diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Under application regulation, the term “disability” means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; see also Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292 (1991); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. However, if the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran, the claim will be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 decibels, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993). For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. VA regulations do not preclude service connection for hearing loss which first met VA’s definition of disability after service. Id. The Veteran’s service treatment records are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnoses referable to right ear hearing loss. In March 2015, the Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination. This examination revealed the right ear puretone thresholds, in decibels (dB), in the right ear for the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz: 5, 5, 10, 15, and 20, respectively. The average for the right ear was 13 dB. The speech recognition score based on the Maryland CNC Test was found to be 100 percent. In February 2020, the Veteran again underwent a VA audiological examination. This examination revealed the right ear puretone thresholds to be 20 dB at all frequencies. The speech recognition score based on the Maryland CNC Test was 100 percent. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran has not had right ear hearing loss in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 at any time during the pendency of the appeal. See Brammer, supra; McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. The auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz has not been measured at 40 decibels or greater; nor have the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz been 26 decibels or greater; and speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are not less than 94 percent bilaterally. The Board reiterates that, despite the Veteran’s assertions of hearing loss due to service, hearing loss must be diagnosed in accordance with VA criteria, which requires objective findings obtained through audiometric testing. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Accordingly, on this record, the evidence weighs against the claim that the Veteran has a current right ear hearing loss disability for VA compensation purposes. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra; Brammer, supra. The claim is denied. Increased disability ratings Disability ratings are intended to compensate impairment in earning capacity due to a service-connected disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. It is necessary to evaluate the disability from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work and to resolve any doubt regarding the extent of the disability in the veteran’s favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Left ear hearing loss Ratings for hearing loss disability are based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled speech discrimination testing together with the average hearing threshold level, in decibels (dB) as measured by pure tone audiometric tests in frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz (Hz). 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. An examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes must include a controlled speech discrimination test, known as the Maryland CNC. To evaluate the degree of disability from defective hearing, the rating schedule requires assignment of a Roman numeral designation, ranging from I to XI. Other than exceptional cases, VA arrives at the proper designation by mechanical application of Table VI, which determines the designation based on results of standard test parameters. Table VII is then applied to arrive at a rating based upon the respective Roman numeral designations for each ear. If impaired hearing is service connected in only one ear, in order to determine the percentage evaluation from Table VII, the nonservice-connected ear (in this case, the right ear) will be assigned a Roman Numeral designation of Level I hearing acuity. The assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations based on the audiology examination results. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). As noted above, the Veteran underwent VA audiological testing in March 2015 and February 2020. At the March 2015 examination, left ear puretone thresholds, in decibels (dB), in the left ear for the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz: 10, 10, 20, 45 and 50, respectively. The average for the left ear was 31 dB. The speech recognition score based on the Maryland CNC Test was found to be 92 percent. Applying Table VI to hearing loss as recorded at this examination, which results in a numerical designation of Level I in the left ear and, combining it with the non-service-connected right ear at Level I, equates to a noncompensable rating. At the February 2020, examination, left ear puretone thresholds for the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz were 25, 25, 30, 45, and 50, respectively. The average for the left ear was 37.5 dB. The speech recognition score was 96 percent. Applying Table VI to hearing loss as recorded at this examination, which results in a numerical designation of Level I in the left ear and, combining it with a right ear also measured at Level I, also results in a noncompensable rating. Thus, the Board finds that the currently assigned noncompensable evaluation for the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss is accurate and appropriately reflects his level of disability. The Board has also considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 governing exceptional patterns of hearing impairment. However, the audiological report does not demonstrate that each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) in either ear is 55 decibels or more or that pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz in either ear. Therefore, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 are not applicable. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a), (b). The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements of the severity of his hearing loss throughout the pendency of this appeal. The Veteran is competent to report matters of which he has personal knowledge, such as difficulty hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2); see also Layno, supra; Jandreau, supra; Davidson, supra. However, the Veteran is not competent to express an opinion about the severity of his hearing impairment as it applies to the rating code. Accordingly, on this record, the evidence weighs against a finding the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss warrants a compensable rating. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. The claim is denied. PTSD At the outset, the Board notes that in an April 2020 rating decision the Veteran was granted a 100 percent disability rating, effective February 24, 2020. The award of the 100 percent from that date is considered to be a full grant of benefits and, therefore, the timeframe subsequent to that date cannot be considered on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). The Veteran’s service-connected PTSD is rated at 70 percent under Diagnostic Code 9411. Under that code, a 70 percent rating is warranted where there is 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); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. A 100 percent rating 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; intermittent 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Ratings are assigned according to the manifestation of particular symptoms, but the use of the term “such as” in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of the symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002). Accordingly, the evidence considered in determining the level of impairment from PTSD under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 is not restricted to the symptoms listed in Code 9411 (and the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders). Instead, VA must consider all symptoms of a claimant’s condition that affect the level of occupational and social impairment. When evaluating the level of disability of a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the extent of social impairment but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. The focus of the rating process is on industrial impairment from the service-connected psychiatric disorder, and social impairment is significant only insofar as it affects earning capacity. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.126, 4.130. When a question arises as to which of two ratings under a particular code applies, the higher rating is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In July 2014, the Veteran was seen in the emergency department of a local hospital after experiencing suicidal ideation. At that time, evaluation showed him to be alert and oriented to time and place. He was cooperative and mood was good. His affect was appropriate and speech normal. Memory was good. At the time of discharge, he denied experiencing any suicidal or homicidal ideation. In a September 2014 mental health service plan, he reported experiencing anxiety, mood disturbance, negative intrusive thoughts and sleep disturbances which impaired his ability to function daily. In a December 2014 mental health note, the Veteran was found to be alert and oriented on all spheres, with normal affect and mood. There was no signs of psychosis and the Veteran denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. A January 2015 care plan, developed after the Veteran successfully completed substance abuse treatment, showed him to be stable of mood with congruent affect, without suicidal or homicidal ideation. In March 2015, the Veteran underwent a VA PTSD examination. At that time, he reported experiencing a depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, disturbance of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances including work, and obsessional rituals which interfered with routine activities. He had decreased interests and social interaction, hypervigilance and an increased startle response. The Veteran was found, overall, to be experiencing occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. VA mental health treatment and social work notes from 2015 and 2016 show that the Veteran was consistently found to be oriented in all spheres and dressed appropriately. Speech was normal. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. Memory was intact. There was no evidence of hallucinations of any kind. The Veteran refrained from relapse, even in the face of significant stressors related to financial issues which were then occurring. Overall, he mainly reported feeling anxious and mildly depressed. He was maintaining sobriety and doing well in his living arrangement. He spent considerable time over the 2015 holidays with his family. In May 2016, he reported that despite feeling depressed due to financial issues, he enjoyed hobbies such as fishing and taking long drives. The Veteran consistently interacted with VA staff, such as nurses and his assigned social worker, without limitation or issue. At no point was he found to be experiencing gross impairment of thought, inappropriate behavior, or serious loss of memory. In June 2016, the Veteran underwent a substance use/ PTSD treatment program evaluation report. He reported intrusive thoughts, nightmares, hypervigilance, and problems with concentration. He avoided public places when possible. Mental health treatment notes from 2017 show the Veteran continued to experience depression, anxiety and nightmares. He was consistently fully oriented on all spheres and denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. In February 2018, the Veteran testified at a Decision Review Officer hearing. At that time, he described his main symptoms as avoiding people and isolating himself. He often felt anxious and agitated, was quick to anger, and had nightmares. He recounted the past suicide attempt. Mental health treatment notes from the remainder of the appeal period consistently show that the Veteran experienced depression, anxiety, nightmares and irritability. Treatment notes from July 2018 indicated the Veteran had started drinking again, and thus was experiencing increased depression and anxiety. He was living with his wife. A suggestion of audio hallucinations was made in August 2018. At that time, his compliance with mental health medication was irregular. However, at no point did he express any suicidal or homicidal intentions, and was consistently alert, with congruent mood and intact memory. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that at no time under consideration is the Veteran’s PTSD shown to have been manifested by symptoms and impairment that more nearly approximate the criteria for the next higher, 100 percent, schedular rating. While his PTSD symptoms are shown to have caused impairment in areas such as work, social relations, and mood, the PTSD is not shown to have been manifested by symptoms productive of total occupational and social impairment. Throughout, he has been described as oriented, alert, and cooperative. While he did experience one past suicidal ideation without intent or plan, subsequent treatment records show no recent suicidal ideations and there is no evidence of paranoia or psychosis. His PTSD symptoms presented predominantly as depressed mood, anxiety, and sleep impartment. While the Veteran has displayed some avoidant and isolating behavior, he maintained familial relations, including a marriage, throughout the appeal period. There is ample evidence of record which shows that the Veteran did not experience symptoms consistent with those in the criteria for a 100 percent rating, such as gross impairment of thought processes and memory issues. VA records have consistently shown the Veteran’s level of functioning lacks any significant symptoms productive of total impairment, especially socially. The Board finds that the evidence of record, including the Veteran’s testimony, VA examination reports, and treatment records, are all factors weighing against a finding that his PTSD has resulted in total social impairment at any time under consideration. As for the Veteran’s hospitalization following a suicide attempt, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that suicidal ideation generally rises to the level contemplated in a 70 percent evaluation. See Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 20 (2017) (stating the language of 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 “indicates that the presence of suicidal ideation alone, that is, a veteran’s thoughts of his or her own death or thoughts of engaging in suicide-related behavior, may cause occupational and social impairment in most areas.”). Thus, the Board finds that the currently assigned rating is appropriate in light of these circumstances. In addition, this single episode of suicidal ideation falls short of the “persistent” danger of hurting self which would warrant a higher rating. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements of the severity of his PTSD prior to February 24, 2020. The Veteran is competent to report matters of which he has personal knowledge, such as symptomatology. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2); see also Layno, supra; Jandreau, supra. However, he is not competent to express an opinion about the severity of his psychiatric disability as it applies to the assigned rating code. Accordingly, on this record, the evidence weighs against a finding the Veteran’s PTSD warrants a higher rating. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. The claim is denied. TDIU Prior to February 24, 2020 While the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms of PTSD do not rise to the level of total social and occupational impairment, the Board also finds that the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms have kept him from obtaining substantially gainful employment prior to February 24, 2020. Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned when a veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. If the schedular rating is less than total, a total disability evaluation can be assigned based on individual unemployability if the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service connected disability provided that if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). The central inquiry is “whether the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability.” Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience when arriving at this conclusion; factors such as age or impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities are not to be considered. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. The applicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner. Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). TDIU is to be awarded based on the judgment of the rating agency. Floore v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 376, 381 (2013). Here, service connection is currently in effect for PTSD, rated as 70 percent disabling prior to February 24, 2020 and 100 percent thereafter; carpal tunnel syndrome of the right hand, rated at 30 percent; pes planus of the right foot, 20 percent; right wrist chronic sprain, 10 percent; right foot hallux valgus and rigidus, 10 percent; tinnitus, 10 percent; and left ear hearing loss and hemorrhoids, each rated as noncompensable. Thus, the Veteran meets the schedular criteria for TDIU. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). On his VA Form 21-8940, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, the Veteran indicated his service-connected PTSD, tinnitus and hearing loss rendered him unemployable. He last worked as a truck driver from 2006 to 2013. He has a high school diploma and no other education or training. At his March 2015 VA PTSD examination, the Veteran reported that he last worked in 2013 but had to leave the job due to “physical problems.” In the June 2016 PTSD treatment program evaluation report, the Veteran reported that he was fired due to alcohol abuse. He also reported that he was unable to handle the demands of his job as a truck driver due to crying spells, difficulty concentrating, and fear for his safety, so he retired. In his substantive appeal in March 2017, the Veteran asserted that he was unable to work due to psychiatric issues. At his February 2018 hearing before a Decision Review Officer, the Veteran testified that he was fired from his job for being late for a delivery. He further testified that he was irritable around others and often snapped at others, which made it hard to work with people. In addition, he was also depressed, which he indicated impacted his ability to work. At the November 2019 hearing before the Board, the Veteran inexplicably testified that he last worked in 2010 but was no longer working. Based on the cumulative evidence of record, and resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds it is reasonably likely that he would be precluded from obtaining and maintaining gainful employment, consistent with his education and prior work history due, to the effects of his service-connected PTSD symptoms. See Geib, supra; Floore, supra. The evidence of record indicates that the Veteran has had a long history of difficulty interacting with others, isolating, angry outbursts, depressed mood, and chronic sleep impairment that hinders his ability to secure and follow substantially gainful employment. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that the impairment from service-connected PTSD would likely preclude him from his previous employment as a truck driver. Moreover, because the Veteran possesses only a high school diploma without further education or training, he would likely only be capable of employment similar to his own work experience, which is precluded by his PTSD symptoms. The record arguably shows that his functional impairment would also likely preclude any gainful occupations otherwise available to him. Accordingly, the Board finds that TDIU is appropriate from April 7, 2014, the date the Veteran filed his claim, to February 24, 2020, the date he was assigned a 100 percent disability rating for PTSD. To this extent, the claim is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Subsequent to February 24, 2020 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). Thus, if VA has found a Veteran to be totally disabled as a result of a particular service-connected disability or 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. See Herlehy v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 33, 35 (2001) (finding a request for TDIU moot where 100 percent schedular rating was awarded for the same period). However, a grant of a 100 percent disability does not always render the issue of TDIU moot. VA’s duty to maximize a Veteran’s benefits includes consideration of whether his disabilities establish entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011); Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008). Specifically, SMC may be warranted if the Veteran has a 100 percent disability rating for a single disability, and VA finds that TDIU is warranted based solely on the disabilities other than the disability that is rated at 100 percent. See Bradley, supra; see also 75 Fed. Reg. 11,229-04 (March 10, 2010) (withdrawing VAOPGCPREC 6-1999). In this case, as of February 24, 2020, the Veteran is in receipt of SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.350 (i) based on PTSD rated as 100 percent disabling and additional service-connected disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more from that date. There is no additional benefit that VA has not already maximized. Accordingly, the Board finds that since the Veteran is rated at 100 percent for service-connected PTSD and is in receipt of SMC, the issue of entitlement to TDIU after February 24, 2020 is moot. Bradley, supra; Buie, supra. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jeremy J. Olsen, 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.