When an appeal involves several disabilities and years of decisions, the work begins by reconstructing what happened. In this pending consolidated CAVC appeal, I prepared an opening brief challenging two Board decisions involving knee ratings, peripheral vascular disease, PTSD, and total disability based on individual unemployability, or TDIU.
The arguments address different benefits, but share a central concern: the Board's conclusions needed to account for the actual claim history, medical findings, and evidence about the veteran's ability to work. I developed those issues separately so each requested correction had a clear basis in the record.
Following the claim history back to the earlier award
VA had assigned an initial knee rating, then received another application within a year of that decision. VA treated the later application as a claim for an increase. I argued that the Board needed to determine whether the filing instead continued pursuit of the earlier claim and could preserve an earlier period for evaluating the disability.
The brief relies in part on Chisholm v. Collins, which addresses when a supplemental claim may be submitted on a VA-prescribed form other than the designated supplemental-claim form. That does not mean every application preserves an earlier date. My argument asks for the missing analysis of this filing and this claim history under the applicable rules.
Comparing vascular findings with the Board's conclusions
For the vascular ratings, I identified treatment records reporting calf pain after walking about 100 yards and ankle-brachial-index measurements relevant to the rating criteria. Those measurements compare blood pressure at the ankle and arm. I argued that the Board's description of the evidence did not adequately account for the findings I identified.
The rating criteria changed during the period at issue, so the brief distinguishes the relevant periods. I requested a remand for the Board to address the evidence and explain the appropriate evaluations, rather than treating a single measurement as automatically deciding every rating question.
I also raised whether medication had reduced the symptoms reflected in the record. The brief invokes Ingram v. Collins and the rule concerning beneficial medication effects when the applicable rating criteria do not contemplate medication. My argument is that the Board left the issue unexplained; it does not establish how much any medication changed this veteran's measurements or symptoms.
Examining the years the employment analysis left unresolved
The TDIU argument required attention to the earlier periods of unemployment and short-term work. I traced employment forms, treatment records, and hearing testimony describing difficulty maintaining jobs and needing time away for care. I challenged the Board's reliance on later employment without adequately explaining what that meant for the earlier period.
I also argued that the analysis needed to consider the functional effects of the relevant service-connected disabilities together. A history of working at one point does not, by itself, answer every question about the ability to sustain substantially gainful employment during a different period. The brief asks for the missing findings and explanation.
Requiring a full evaluation of the psychiatric evidence
The PTSD argument challenges the Board's characterization of significant psychiatric evidence as an isolated report. I identified additional treatment records and argued that the Board needed to reconcile them and evaluate the impairment they described.
That argument seeks an assessment of the whole disability picture. It does not suggest that one diagnosis or symptom automatically establishes a 100 percent rating. The issue presented to the Court is whether the Board adequately addressed the evidence bearing on the requested evaluation for the earlier period.
Pursuing a decision that addresses the complete record
I ask the Court to set aside the challenged portions of the decisions and remand for readjudication. The appeal remains pending; no new rating, earlier effective date, or TDIU award is announced here.
My exclusive focus is CAVC appeals. In this case, that means building a brief that connects each challenged finding to specific evidence and explains why the omission could matter to the benefits my client seeks.
Read more about appealing a Board denial of TDIU and overlooked favorable evidence, or contact Ricks Law for a free Board decision review.
