Citation Nr: 21013532 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-04 830 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER A total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is granted, subject to the law and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits. FINDING OF FACT The evidence as to whether the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities is, at least, in relative equipoise. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for an award of a TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1970 to December 1972, to include service in Vietnam. He also had service in the Army National Guard. His decorations include the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Des Moines, Iowa. Entitlement to TDIU The Veteran claims that he is unable to work due to his service-connected disabilities, which consist of coronary artery disease (CAD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). According to the record, the Veteran has not held a full-time job since 2008. He filed his TDIU application (VA Form 21-8940) in August 2015. In that application, he indicated that his service-connected disabilities had rendered him too disabled to work in September 2012. A TDIU is warranted where the evidence of record shows that a Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation, consistent with his education and occupational experience, as a result of service-connected disability, without regard to advancing age. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). In general, if there is only one such disability, it must be rated at 60 percent or more. If there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). For the above purpose of one 60-percent disability, or one 40-percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable; (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident; (3) disabilities affecting a single body system (e.g., orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric); (4) multiple injuries incurred in action; or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). In the present case, the Veteran meets the threshold requirements for a schedular award of a TDIU. He is currently in receipt of a 70 percent rating for PTSD and a 60 percent rating for CAD. His combined disability rating is 90 percent from June 28, 2013. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence supports the award of a TDIU. The evidence reflects that the Veteran has a high school education, with one year of college; he has worked several part-time jobs of relatively short duration; his last job of significant duration required physical labor (regularly lifting equipment of at least 50 pounds); he is no longer able to do regular lifting of heavy objects (or anything over 30 pounds) due to a heart attack; he continues to have trouble maintaining personal hygiene; and he has been laid off due to PTSD-related symptoms—to include social avoidance and difficulty with others. See, e.g., 2009 Social Security Administration records. VA treatment records demonstrate that the Veteran suffered a myocardial infarction in September 2012. His physicians have suggested that his occupational abilities are impaired due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) and residuals of myocardial infarction (to include angina). See September 2015 VA heart conditions examination. He suffers from both IHD and coronary artery disease. Id. A February 2016 lay statement from the Veteran’s former employer detailed the Veteran’s inability to maintain his job due to difficult behaviors, demonstrating “lack of respect.” This statement corroborates the Veteran’s claims of psychological symptoms outlined in the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders (i.e., inability to establish and maintain effective relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances in a work setting). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The Board notes that a September 2015 VA examiner opined that the Veteran should be able to engage in “lighter duty work”, however, she gave no indication of what that would entail. Furthermore, the Veteran’s employment history fails to include experience of sustained gainful employment other than manual labor. Even if he were to seek employment in “lighter duty work”, the record suggests that his PTSD interferes with his ability to obtain and sustain gainful employment. The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence of record and finds that the evidence supports a favorable finding. The final determination with respect to a Veteran’s entitlement to a TDIU is an adjudicatory, rather than a medical, function. Under the circumstances, in light of the totality of the record, and giving due consideration to the Veteran’s description of the functional effects of his service-connected PTSD and CAD as they relate to his level of education and prior occupational experience, the Board is persuaded that he is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disability. The evidence, at a minimum, gives rise to a reasonable doubt on the matter. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A TDIU is therefore granted. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to the appropriate effective date of the award. That matter will be addressed by the agency of original jurisdiction when the award is effectuated. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board F. Lanton, 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.