In a TDIU appeal, the question of whether a veteran can work depends on the actual limitations caused by service-connected disabilities. My client’s Board decision said there was no indication of difficulty with prolonged standing. The record contained a statement describing difficulty with prolonged sitting and standing. That mismatch became the focus of the appeal.
Listening and checking the record
I listened to my client and reviewed the Board decision against the underlying evidence. Rather than treating the Board’s description of the record as the end of the inquiry, I examined the statement in support of the claim and compared it with the employment analysis.
The statement was relevant because it described functional limitations, not simply a diagnosis or a disability percentage. The Board had not adequately addressed it or explained why it was rejected. Identifying that omission required reading the veteran’s account alongside the precise factual proposition the Board used to deny TDIU.
A legal memo focused on the missing explanation
I drafted a legal memo connecting the overlooked statement to the Board’s reasons-or-bases obligation. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1), the Board must explain its material findings. The motion also relied on Caluza v. Brown, which addresses the Board’s treatment of material favorable evidence.
The argument did not assume that difficulty sitting or standing automatically establishes entitlement to TDIU. It identified why the Board’s conclusion could not be adequately reviewed without an explanation of the contrary evidence. That distinction kept the appeal tied to a specific, supportable error.
Securing another decision on TDIU
The parties’ joint motion agreed that the Board had not adequately addressed the veteran’s statement. I secured a CAVC remand so that the TDIU matter would receive further adjudication consistent with the identified error.
This was a remand victory, not an immediate TDIU award. The Court appeal required the claim to be reconsidered with the missing analysis addressed. It did not establish an effective date or a particular amount of retroactive compensation.
Why the client’s account mattered
A veteran’s statement can identify a limitation that a summary of diagnoses does not capture. My role was to listen, locate the relevant evidence, and explain why the law required the Board to engage with it. In this case, a concrete statement about everyday functioning exposed a material gap in the denial.
Discuss your Board appeal
I represent veterans and their families at the CAVC. Learn about my appellate representation or request a free Board decision review.
For more about this issue, read our related appeal guide. The ordinary Court filing deadline is 120 days after notice of the Board decision is issued. Contacting a law firm does not extend that deadline.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits.
