Citation Nr: 21072745 Decision Date: 12/06/21 Archive Date: 12/06/21 DOCKET NO. 19-39 002 DATE: December 6, 2021 ISSUES Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. Entitlement to an increased initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for the period prior to June 19, 2020 for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (previously rated as other specified trauma and stressor related disorder (claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder)). Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for back disability is dismissed. Entitlement to an increased initial evaluation of 70 percent, but no higher, for the period prior to June 19, 2020 for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (previously rated as other specified trauma and stressor related disorder (claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder)) is granted. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability for the period prior to June 19, 2020 is granted. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability for the period from June 19, 2020 is moot. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In the October 2021 Board Hearing, as well as prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew his Substantive Appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disability. 2. For the period prior to June 19, 2020, the Veteran's PTSD has been manifested by occupational and social impairment in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to symptoms of frequent depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively, impaired impulse control, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 3. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, for the period prior to June 19, 2020, the evidence of record shows the Veteran has been unable to obtain or maintain gainful employment consistent with his level of education and employment history due to service-connected disability. 4. The Veteran's service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder is rated at 100 percent on a schedular basis as of June 19, 2020, and the Veteran does not have any separate disability ratings which combine to 60 percent or more. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disability by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §19.55. 2. The criteria for an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for the period prior to June 19, 2020 for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder have been met or approximated. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 3. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU prior to June 19, 2020 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16, 4.19. 4. The issue of entitlement to a TDIU from June 19, 2020, is moot. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1967 to June 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2021 the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a video teleconference hearing. A transcript of the testimony offered at the hearing has been associated with the record. By way of background, the Veteran filed a claim for entitlement to service connection on May 2, 2018. In the October 2018 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for his posttraumatic stress disorder and assigned an initial disability rating of 30 percent, effective May 2, 2018. The medical and lay evidence of record suggests unemployability due to PTSD since the date of the claim for service connection. The Veteran filed a claim for entitlement to a TDIU on June 22, 2020. When entitlement to a TDIU is raised during the adjudicatory process of the underlying disability, it is part of the claim for benefits for the underlying disability. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In light of Rice and the medical and lay evidence of record, the Board will infer a claim for TDIU with an effective date of May 2, 2018. In March 2021, the RO issued a rating decision which increased the Veteran's rating for his PTSD to 100 percent, effective June 19, 2020. Although the Veteran has been granted the highest schedular rating for his PTSD for a portion of the period on appeal, this is not a full grant of the Veteran's claim and the matter is still on appeal before the Board. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993). As such, based on the March 2021 rating decision, the issue has been recharacterized as entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder for the period prior to June 19, 2020. The claim has been reworded as noted above. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(1); 38C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2)(i). The Board notes that new evidence has been received since the Veteran was issued a SOC in September 2019. It does not appear from the record that the Veteran submitted a waiver of review of that evidence by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). However, as discussed below, the evidence of record is sufficient to grant the Veteran's claim in full; to wit, a TDIU for the total relevant period on appeal. Therefore, a remand for AOJ consideration of the new evidence is not warranted, and the Veteran would not be prejudiced by proceeding with a final decision at this time. Please note that the case has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900 (c). Increased Ratings - General Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1. If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § § 4.7. All reasonable doubt as to the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § § 4.3. In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary importance. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). That said, higher evaluations may be assigned for separate periods based on the facts found during the appeal period. This practice is known as staged ratings. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999); see also Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that the VA give "due consideration" to "all pertinent medical and lay evidence" in evaluating a claim to disability benefits. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When analyzing lay evidence, the Board should assess the evidence and determine whether the disability claimed is of the type for which lay evidence is competent. See Davidson, 581 F.3d at 1313; Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). If the evidence for and against a claim is in equipoise, the claim will be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A claim will be denied only if the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56 (1990). Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. 1. Entitlement to service connection for back disability. At the outset, the Board notes that the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. §19.55. In the October 2021 Video Conference Board Hearing, as well as prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew his Substantive Appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for back disability. Therefore, with respect to the service connection claim, there remains no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal with respect to the claim for service connection for a back disability and it is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to an increased initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for the period prior to June 19, 2020 for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (previously rated as other specified trauma and stressor related disorder (claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder)). Legal Standards PTSD The Veteran's PTSD is rated under Diagnostic Code 9411, covering PTSD. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. PTSD is rated using the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula). The Veteran was initially service- connected for PTSD in an October 2018 rating decision with a 30 percent rating effective from the date of claim of May 2, 2018. Under the General Formula, a 30 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. A 50 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as flattened affect, circumstantial, circumlocutory or stereotyped speech, panic attacks more than once a week, difficulty in understanding complex commands, impairment of short- and long-term memory, impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent rating is assigned for 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 work-like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent rating is assigned 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 or minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives and own occupation or name. Id. Use of the term "such as" in the criteria for a rating under § 4.130 indicates that the list of symptoms that follows is "non-exhaustive," meaning that VA is not required to find the presence of all, most, or even some of the enumerated symptoms to assign to a rating. See Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 115 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). However, because "[a]ll nonzero disability levels [in § 4.130] are also associated with objectively observable symptomatology," and the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that "the veteran's impairment must be 'due to' those symptoms," "a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration." Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 116-17. "[I]n the context of a 70 [percent] rating, § 4.130 requires not only the presence of certain symptoms but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas." Id. at 117. Therefore, although the Veteran's symptoms are the "primary consideration" in assigning a disability evaluation under § 4.130, determining whether the veteran is entitled to a 70 percent disability evaluation "also requires an ultimate factual conclusion as to the veteran's level of impairment in 'most areas.'" Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118-19. Thus, it is not sufficient for the Board to simply match the symptoms listed in the rating criteria against those exhibited by a Veteran. Rather, "VA must engage in a holistic analysis" of the severity, frequency, and duration of the signs and symptoms of the veteran's mental disorder, determine the level of occupational and social impairment caused by those signs and symptoms, and assign an evaluation that most nearly approximates that level of occupational and social impairment. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017). When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the Veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based upon all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment, rather than solely upon the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id. When evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. Id. Evidence and Analysis The Veteran is appealing the initial 30 percent rating awarded for his service-connected PTSD for the period prior to June 19, 2020, asserting that his symptoms and occupational impairment are greater than the rating criteria describes for a 30 percent rating. In looking to the evidence of record, the Veteran was afforded a VA PTSD examination in October 2018. The examiner diagnosed other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, subthreshold PTSD. The examiner characterized occupational and social impairment as due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by medication. The Veteran denied ever being married or having children. He reported that his landlord would help him drive to appointments and get groceries, and he would have help preparing meals. The Veteran reported that he was currently retired and since retirement he had been hanging around and seeing friends. The Veteran reported that after getting ambushed twice in service he began to experience depression. The Veteran denied any current or previous metal health treatment or medications. The examiner attributed symptoms of depression, anxiety and chronic sleep impairment to the Veteran's mental health diagnosis. The examiner observed that the Veteran was 45 minutes early to the examination and was appropriately dressed and groomed. The Veteran reported that his mood was fine, and the examiner noted that his affect was within normal limits. The examiner noted that the Veteran appeared at times forgetful, noting that he did not recall events from his own childhood. He denied any auditory or visual hallucinations as well as any suicidal or homicidal ideation. The examiner noted that the Veteran was able to manage his own financial affairs. VA treatment records reflect ongoing treatment of the Veteran for PTSD symptoms during the period on appeal. Notably, a VA treatment note shows that in November 2018, during a psychotherapy session, the Veteran reported that he was experiencing an increased frequency in nightmares. The examiner observed him to be guarded, but pleasant. His mood was described as somewhat anxious with appropriate affect. The examiner noted that he had a logical thought process, though he did have some difficulty understanding all of the examiner's questions. The examiner observed the Veteran to be casually dressed with adequate hygiene, though he appeared older than his stated age. During a February 2019 psychotherapy session, the Veteran reported experiencing periods of depression. The examiner noted that the Veteran presented with a dysphoric affect and was tearful at times. The examiner observed that the Veteran was pleasant and cooperative and presented with adequate hygiene. She also noted that he was accompanied by his caregiver and friend, V.S., to the appointment. In an August 2020 statement the Veteran's friend V.S. wrote that he first met the Veteran in November 2013 and has continued to provide support for him through the period on appeal, as the Veteran did not have any support circle. V.S. wrote that in his opinion the Veteran has always been entitled to a 100 percent disability rating since his discharge from service. A December 2020 private mental health assessment was added to the claims file in January 2021. The examiner, Dr. R.S., reviewed the Veteran's claims file and conducted an interview of the Veteran as well as an interview of V.S. who has assisted the Veteran for many years. The examiner wrote that from at least June 12, 2018 the Veteran was experiencing symptoms including, but not limited to, intrusive memories of traumatic events, poor memory, depression, nightmares, anxiety, hostility, feelings of guilt/worthlessness and mood disturbances. The Veteran and V.S. testified at a Board hearing in October 2020 before the undersigned VLJ. The Veteran testified that from May 2018 through June 2020 he was experiencing symptoms of depression, heightened anxiety, nightmares about the Vietnam War, concentration problems, nervousness and issues with getting along with people. The Veteran testified that during the period on appeal he was thinking about suicide once a week. He testified crying a lot when watching television and the news. He testified to showering approximately once a week. The Veteran testified that he would experience hallucinations two to three times a week. The Veteran's friend, V.S. testified that during the period on appeal the Veteran would get angry over simple things, such as if his breakfast was not made on time. V.S. also testified that the Veteran did not want to leave home and did not socialize during the period on appeal. Based on the medical and lay record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence demonstrates that a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, is warranted for the Veteran's PTSD, from May 2, 2018 to June 19, 2020. Here, the Board notes the record of severity of the Veteran's disability most closely approximates the criteria for a 70 percent disability evaluation. During this period the Veteran's symptoms include occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood due to chronic sleep impairment; disturbances of motivation and mood; irritability; impaired impulse control; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances; some neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. The record reflects recurrent nightmares, intrusive thoughts, anxiety, diminished interest and difficulty maintaining personal hygiene. Moreover, the record consistently indicates that the Veteran had trouble forming relationships with others, isolation, and persistent irritability. Suicidal ideation has been noted during the appeal period. The Veteran's symptoms have been fairly consistent in this period and they have resulted in an overall disability picture that more nearly approximates deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood for the entire period on appeal. Although the Board notes that the October 2018 VA examiner did not find occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, family relations, judgment, thinking, throughout the period on appeal, an assignment of an evaluation under the Schedule is the responsibility of the finder of fact, not the examiner. The adjudicator is charged with interpreting the competent and credible evidence of record as a whole and reconciling such to accurately reflect the disability. Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. While medical and lay opinions regarding the extent of functional impairment are evidence to be considered, the ultimate factual determination lies with the adjudicator. As an adjudicator may not substitute his or her own opinion for medical judgment, Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991), a medical opinion cannot subvert the responsibility of the fact finder. Moore, supra. Moreover, the Board notes that although the Veteran does not demonstrate all of the listed symptoms provided with a 70 percent rating, such as spatial disorientation, the provided symptoms are not to be treated as a checklist when determining what rating is appropriate. Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 442. Rather, the criteria ("such symptoms as") provides guidance as to the severity of symptoms contemplated for each rating in addition to permitting consideration of other symptoms particular to the Veteran. Id. Therefore, considering the Veteran's symptomatology as a whole, the Board finds that the increased rating of 70 percent more nearly approximated the Veteran's symptomatology. The Board further finds the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's symptoms more nearly approximate the criteria for a 100 percent disability rating at any time during the appeal period; to wit, prior to June 19, 2020. The Veteran's PTSD symptoms do not more nearly approximate total occupational and social impairment. At no point during the appeal period has such symptomatology as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene) or disorientation to time or place. While the Veteran has exhibited isolationist tendencies, he has been able to maintain a relationship with his friend V.S.. Although suicidal ideation has been noted, no examiner has noted that the Veteran has had any plan or intent to harm himself or others. Additionally, the evidence of record generally shows that the Veteran has consistently appeared oriented and understood the consequences of his actions. For these reasons, and in consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds that total occupational and social impairment due to PTSD symptoms is not demonstrated during this period. Accordingly, the evidence shows that the overall disability picture for this period satisfies the criteria for the assignment of an increased evaluation of 70 percent, but no higher, for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD for the period prior to June 19, 2020. Bankhead, 29 Vet. App. at 22; Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 442; Vasquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 11617. All potentially applicable diagnostic codes have been considered, and there is no basis to assign an evaluation in excess of the ratings assigned herein for the appeal period. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Board finds that a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for the period from prior to June 19, 2020 for PTSD is warranted. See Hart, 21 Vet. App. 505. 3. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability for the period prior to June 19, 2020. TDIU VA will grant a total rating for compensation purposes based on unemployability when the evidence shows that the Veteran is precluded, by reason of service-connected disabilities, from obtaining and maintaining any form of gainful employment consistent with his or her education and occupational experience. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. Normally, consideration is given to such an award only if the Veteran has a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or if he has two or more such disabilities with a combined rating of 70 percent or more, with at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). However, failure to satisfy these percentage standards is not an absolute bar to an award of TDIU. It is the established policy of VA that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b). In evaluating a Veteran's employability, consideration may be given to his level of education, special training, and previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not to impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16. Age may not be considered as a factor in evaluating service-connected disability; and unemployability, in service-connected claims, associated with advancing age or intercurrent disability, may not be used as a basis for a total disability rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.19. Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. For purposes of this section, marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a Veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts-found basis (includes but is not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. Consideration shall be given in all claims to the nature of the employment and the reason for termination. Id. Under applicable criteria, VA shall consider all lay and medical evidence of record in a case with respect to benefits under laws administered by VA. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Evidence and Analysis The Veteran contends that for the period prior to June 19, 2020 he was unable to obtain and maintain gainful employment due to the severity of his service-connected PTSD. The Veteran is currently service connected for posttraumatic stress disorder, pursuant to this decision, with a 70 percent evaluation for the period prior to June 19, 2020, as awarded in this decision above. As such, he has met the schedular threshold percentage requirements for consideration of a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Accordingly, the only remaining question is whether the Veteran's service-connected disability precluded all forms of gainful employment, considering the Veteran's level of education and work history. The ultimate responsibility for determining the effects of disabilities on the question of employability rests with the adjudicator and not a medical examiner. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). When reasonable doubt arises as to the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in a veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. In evaluating the Veteran's claim of entitlement to a TDIU, the Board has considered the Veteran's education, employment history, VA examinations of record, Veteran and lay witness contentions and the opinion of a vocational expert. As will be outlined below, the Board finds it is reasonably shown that the Veteran's PTSD rendered him unemployable during the appeal period. According to his October 2020 VA Form 21-8940 claim form, the Veteran completed high school. He does not report that he has any other education or training. The Veteran reported during his October 2018 VA examination that he worked as a shipping clerk in a bakery, where he worked for 36 years, lastly in 2006. During the October 2021 Board hearing the Veteran testified that he believes that his mental health condition has prevented him from working during the period on appeal. As discussed above, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2018 for his service-connected PTSD. The examiner characterized occupational and social impairment as due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by medication. The Veteran was reported to experience symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety and chronic sleep impairment. The Veteran also reported that he would get a lot of help from his landlord with tasks such as driving him to his appointments and getting groceries. Also as discussed above, the Veteran submitted a private opinion from Dr. R.S. in January 2021. Dr. R.S. opined, following a review of the claims file and interview with the Veteran, that, for the period on appeal, the Veteran experienced total occupational and social impairment due to his PTSD. Dr. R.S. noted that the Veteran possessed the capacity to make simple day to day decisions but needed assistance with significant financial or legal decisions. The examiner noted that the Veteran experienced problematic social interactions due to his avoidance behavior. The examiner also described symptoms of marked arousal including diminished frustration tolerance, impaired judgment and irritability. The examiner opined that since at least June 12, 2018 the Veteran has been unable to function in any job due to his post-traumatic stress disorder. Thus, after careful review of the record, including the medical evidence and the Veteran's statements regarding the impact of his service- connected PTSD on his ability to gain and maintain employment, the Board finds there is sufficient evidence to find that the Veteran's PTSD rendered him unemployable during the appeal period. See Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294 (1995), citing Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532, 537 (1994) (TDIU may not be denied without producing evidence, as distinguished from mere conjecture, that the Veteran's disability does not prevent him or her from performing work that would produce sufficient income to be other than marginal). Affording the Veteran all benefit-of-the-doubt, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding the question of whether the Veteran was unable to perform the physical and mental acts required for substantially gainful employment due to his service-connected disabilities. Accordingly, TDIU is warranted for the period prior to June 19, 2020. 4. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability for the period after June 19, 2020. For the following reasons, the Board considers the Veteran's TDIU claim after June 19, 2020, to be moot. In some cases, but not all, the assignment of a total schedular rating renders a TDIU claim moot. See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008); see also Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2010). In Bradley, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court or CAVC) found that a TDIU was warranted in addition to a schedular 100 percent evaluation where the TDIU had been granted for a disability other than the disability for which a 100 percent rating was in effect. Under those circumstances, there was no "duplicate counting of disabilities." Bradley, 22 Vet. App. at 293 (emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. Although no additional disability compensation may be paid when a total schedular disability rating is already in effect, the Court decision in Bradley recognizes that a separate award of a TDIU predicated on a single disability may form the basis for an award of special monthly compensation (SMC). SMC pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), what is referred to as SMC(s) or SMC housebound, may be warranted in addition to his regular compensation if the Veteran has a total disability rating for a single disability, and additional service-connected disability or disabilities rated at 60 percent or more. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i); (emphasis added.) The total rating for the single disability for SMC purposes may be schedular, or may be based on TDIU, so long as TDIU was granted solely because of that single disability. Id. The Veteran is rated with a 100 percent evaluation for his single service-connected disability of PTSD, from June 19, 2020 forward, and therefore does not meet the schedular threshold as of the date of this Board decision. Id. Additionally, the Board finds that there is no claim for SMC(s) housebound, explicit or inferred, in this appeal. There is no further lay or medical evidence the Veteran is housebound in fact. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i). The Veteran has made no such explicit claim, and the Board finds no evidence in the claims file that infers an SMC(s) housebound claim. Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118 (1991). The Board thus finds that the Veteran is not qualified for, and nor has he claimed, SMC(s) housebound. If, hypothetically speaking, had the Veteran's total rating been based on a combination of his service-connected disabilities, (which by definition would mean that his individual service-connected disabilities are each rated at less than 100 percent), then TDIU would not be moot if it could be granted on a single disability, in turn making the Veteran eligible for SMC(s). If, however, he has a single disability already rated at 100 percent, as the Veteran does in this case, entitlement to TDIU becomes moot as a matter of law, because he has already met that portion of the requirement for SMC. See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008). (Continued on next page.) Here, to award a separate TDIU rating, in addition to the schedular 100 percent rating based on the Veteran's service-connected PTSD, would result in duplicate counting of disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. As such, entitlement to a TDIU is moot for the period after June 19, 2020. See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 293-4 (2008); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Nettey, 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.