Citation Nr: 21006909 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 790 DATE: February 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for schizoaffective disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT At no point during the appeal period has the Veteran’s schizoaffective disorder been productive of total occupational and social impairment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a rating in excess of 70 percent for schizoaffective disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9211. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from October 1982 to November 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. In August 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a Central Office hearing. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. The matter was before the Board in November 2019, at which time the appeal for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability was dismissed, and the issue currently on appeal was remanded for further development. In a March 2020 rating decision, the RO increased the rating for the Veteran’s schizoaffective disorder to 70 percent, effective December 3, 2014. Despite the award of a higher rating, the Veteran has not been awarded the highest possible rating, and therefore his claim remains in appellate status. A.B. v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). The record includes examination reports and records of VA treatment that were associated with the file after the last adjudication of the Veteran’s appeal in a June 2020 supplemental statement of the case. These records are either irrelevant to the issue currently on appeal, or are duplicative and cumulative of evidence previously of record. As such, there is no prejudice in the Board reaching a decision at this time. 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. § 4.1. Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula), the Board must conduct a “holistic analysis” that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The Board must determine whether unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages. Then, the Board must determine whether the associated symptoms, both listed and unlisted, caused the level of impairment required for a higher disability rating. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A 70 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; 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); or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. A 100 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such 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; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or own name cause total occupational and social impairment. After a careful review of all the lay and medical evidence of record pertinent to the appeal period, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 70 percent is not warranted. In this regard, the evidence overall does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s schizoaffective disorder symptoms manifested in total occupational and social impairment, so as to warrant the assignment of a 100 percent rating. Initially, the record does not show that the Veteran suffers from total occupational impairment. At his August 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran specifically withdrew his claim for a TDIU on the basis that he was currently employed as a federal employee. He testified that he worked well at his current job and his coworkers had indicated that he was the most “relaxed” person. At his most recent, February 2020 VA mental disorders examination, the Veteran reported to the examiner that he had worked for various governmental agencies over the prior 20 years and was currently employed with a federal agency working remotely from his home. He reported that he enjoyed his current work. In opining as to the Veteran’s occupational impairment, the VA examiner reported that, with the exception of a “toxic” boss during employment from 2013 to 2015, the Veteran denied any difficulty in getting along with his coworkers, denied that he acted irritably with others, and in fact worked well with his coworkers, receiving “top” performance evaluations. The examiner also noted that the Veteran had never been fired from a job. In light of the Veteran’s own statements regarding his prior and current employment, there is no evidentiary basis to support a finding that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder renders him totally occupationally impaired. Similarly, the evidence does not show total social impairment. Indeed, the Veteran has indicated that he has acquaintances, but not friends, and that he also has kept up with hobbies such as dancing (see May 2015 VA examination report). At his August 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran did indicate that he had friends who were as close as family, though limited contact with a sister. At his February 2020 VA examination, the Veteran expressed grief at the sudden loss of his fiancée in August 2019 but noted that he had a number of good friends who were supportive. The Veteran expressed that he continued to enjoy his hobbies of photography and running six days a week. The examiner, based on the interview with the Veteran, indicated that the Veteran had many friends with whom he was quite close, and was not isolated from, nor rejecting of, meaningful social contact. The examiner said that the Veteran was “well-liked.” While the Veteran’s disability does manifest in serious symptoms, to include neglect of hygiene, and intermittently illogical, obscure or irrelevant speech, the February 2020 VA examiner specifically noted that neither of these two symptoms actually render him seriously impaired. The examination reports also indicate intermittent problems with concentration, but as noted above, the Veteran has maintained an ability to complete jobs successfully, and has been employed without ever being fired for more than 20 years. There is no evidence in the record indicating that the Veteran suffers from persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting himself or others, an inability to perform activities of daily living, disorientation to time or place, or any severe memory loss. Based on all of the above, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service-connected schizoaffective disorder, although severe, does not manifest in total occupational and social impairment such that a 100 percent rating is warranted. To the extent that the Veteran’s representative suggested in an August 2020 Appellate Brief that the Board is obligated to consider the applicability of an extraschedular rating, the Board has considered this argument and has concluded that no such referral is warranted. The Veteran’s reduction in functioning resulting from his schizoaffective disorder is fully contemplated by the applicable schedular criteria. There is nothing in the record to suggest that his psychiatric disability is so exceptional or unusual as to render impractical the application of these regular standards, and neither the Veteran nor his representative has identified any symptoms that are not otherwise contemplated by the schedular criteria. See, e.g., Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008). Accordingly, referral for extraschedular consideration is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321; Thun, 22 Vet. App. at 111. In sum, a rating in excess of 70 percent for schizoaffective disorder is denied. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Polly Johnson, 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.