Citation Nr: 21028190
Decision Date: 05/10/21	Archive Date: 05/10/21

DOCKET NO. 17-37 380
DATE: May 10, 2021

ORDER

The 70 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is restored effective June 1, 2016.

FINDING OF FACT

In an October 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court determined that the 70 percent disability rating for PTSD should be restored from June 1, 2016. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for restoration of the 70 percent rating for the Veteran's PTSD, effective June 1, 2016, have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(e), 3.344, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to October 1969.

In May 2020, the Board found that the reduction in evaluation of PTSD from 70 percent to 50 percent was proper.

The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) which, in October 2020, on the basis of a Memorandum Decision, reversed the Board's decision regarding the propriety of the PTSD rating reduction, and remanded the matter for VA to reinstate a 70 percent rating for PTSD from June 1, 2016.  

As the Court's determination is binding on the Board, reinstatement a 70 percent rating for PTSD from June 1, 2016, is warranted.  Harris v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 547, 548 (1995). 

Lastly, the Court addressed the Veteran's representative assertion that the Board erred by failing to address a claim for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU), to include as claim raised under Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009) (TDIU must be considered when raised by the record in increased rating claims).  The Court held the Board did not err in failing to adjudicate a claim for entitlement to a TDIU, as the claim was not properly before the Board when the May 2020 decision was issued.  The Court noted that the only issue on appeal is the propriety of the reduction in rating for PTSD, as opposed to a claim for an increased rating, therefore a Rice TDIU claim was not applicable.  Accordingly, the matter of entitlement to a TDIU is not before the Board and is not addressed herein.  The Veteran can file such a claim with the RO at any time. 

 

 

John J. Crowley

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Azizi, T.

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.