In Saunders v. Wilkie, ___F.3d___ (filed on April 3, 2018), the Federal Circuit held that pain alone, absent a specific diagnosis or identifiable disease or injury, may be a basis for a disability award, so long as the pain is related to military service. On this score, Saunders overruled longstanding Veterans Court cases.
In so holding, the Federal Circuit focused on the meaning of disability, which refers to a functional impairment, rather than the underlying cause of the impairment. According to the court, pain by itself is a form of impairment, thus fitting the VA definition of disability:
“We conclude that pain is an impairment because it diminishes the body’s ability to function, and that pain need not be diagnosed as connected to a current underlying condition to function as an impairment.”
However, the Federal Circuit pointed out that “[t]o establish the presence of a disability, a veteran will need to show that her pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity.”
For years, the VA has denied service-connected claims of impairment caused by pain alone, if the pain was not a symptom of a diagnosed condition or disease. Under Saunders, veterans are now entitled to service-connected benefits for impairment caused by pain, even though the cause of the pain cannot be identified. However, veterans must establish a causal link between military service (or any incidents therein) and the current pain, and impairment caused by the pain.
If you are a VSO and would like additional resources to help your clients, please sign up for our VSO Resource Center.
Listen to our latest webinar on RAMP & the New Appeals Process.
“In Golden v. Shulkin, ____Vet.App._______ (filed February 23, 2018), the Veterans Court decided that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“the Board”) may not use Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores in assigning a disability rating for psychiatric claims where the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, (2013) (“DSM-5”) applies.”
GAF scores have been a fixture of VA medical records and examination reports for some time, a kind of scorecard of the severity of a person’s mental illness. These scores follow a numerical range from 1 to 100 in an inverted order (the lower the score, the more severe the psychiatric disability), with each increment of ten (10) points corresponding to a listed criteria of symptoms. (showing GAF scale).
In 2013, the GAF scale was dropped from DSM-5 as an unreliable index of psychiatric disability. In August 2014, the VA amended its Schedule for Rating Disabilities to remove outdated references to the DMS-IV and to replace them with updated references to DMS-V. As a result, the VA Schedule removed GAF scores as a basis to rate the level of psychiatric disabilities.
The Veterans Court in Golden was emphatic on the inapplicability of GAF scores: Under no circumstances may the Board rely upon GAF scores to determine a veteran’s psychiatric disability level.
While Golden spoke to the inapplicability of the GAF scale to Board adjudications, its holding undoubtedly prohibits the use of GAF scores by regional office adjudicators, both rating specialists and decisions review officers. As such, veterans service officers and other veterans representatives should carefully review the medical records and examination reports in the claims file to make sure the GAF scores correspond to the veteran’s true disability level. If the GAF scores are too high, i.e., unreflective of the severity of the veteran’s psychiatric disability, then representatives should argue the inapplicability of the GAF scores, citing the Golden case.l
If you are a Veteran Service Officer and need additional information to help your clients navigate their VA disability claims, Veterans Law Group welcomes you to sign up for our VSO Resources page.
Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 a veteran is entitled to service-connection for a disability or illness proximately caused by an existing service-connected disease or injury. In VA terminology, the causative disability is called the primary disability and the resulting disability is referred to as the secondary disability.
For some time, the VA interpreted § 3.310 as requiring a primary disability to be service-connected, or at least diagnosed, at the time of the incurrence of the secondary condition before a finding of secondary service-connection could be made. For instance, the resulting injuries of a slip-and-fall caused by an unstable knee could not be service-connected unless the unstable knee was already service-connected at the time of the fall.
“In Frost v. Shulkin, __Vet.App.___ (filed on November 30, 2017), the Veterans Court disagreed with this interpretation of § 3.310, holding that so long as the primary condition is found service-connected by the time of the decision (rating decision or Board decision), a veteran could be eligible for service-connection for his or her secondary condition.”
Take, for example, a case where a veteran has suffered for years with an untreated and undiagnosed PTSD condition caused by war time traumas. Due to anger outbursts and violent behavior – symptoms of his PTSD – the veteran gets into a fight and incurs an immediately diagnosed serious traumatic brain injury (TBI). A year or two after this incident, the veteran is diagnosed with PTSD. The veteran files two claims, one for service-connected PTSD and the other for TBI, secondary to the PTSD. Under the Frost case, the veteran would be eligible for secondary service-connection for TBI, even though his PTSD was neither service-connected nor diagnosed prior to his/her TBI condition.
Keep on the look-out for potential causative relationships between primary and secondary disabilities. In the example above, it would be easy to overlook the connection between the veteran’s PTSD condition and his TBI. If you see a potential relationship between a primary and secondary condition, veterans’ representatives should request the VA to provide a medical examination or opinion under its duty to assist. Keep in mind that secondary service-connection can be found so long as the primary condition is service-connected by the time of the rating decision.
If you are a Veterans Service officer, Veterans Law Group provides support in navigating VA disability claims for your veteran clients. In our VSO Resource section we provide a resource rich VLG brief bank (containing thousands of written arguments on VA issues), updates of new and important VA statutes and regulations, and use of Q & A feedback.
We look forward to serving you and our nation’s veterans. Thank-you for all you do.
As some of you may already know, the VA is permitted to review existing total disability awards based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) to determine if new evidence has come to light establishing the veteran’s capacity to obtain and maintain substantial gainful employment.
However, before reducing a TDIU award, the VA must comply with specific procedural and evidentiary requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.343(c). For example, the VA must meet the clear and convincing evidence standard (not the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard) in establishing that the veteran is now capable of actual employability. This means that the evidence of record must overwhelmingly support a finding of the veteran’s capacity to engage in steady employment. By actual employability, § 3.343(c) requires the VA to prove the veteran’s clear and present ability to obtain and perform work. In other words, the VA cannot base a reduction upon the veteran’s hypothetical or speculative ability to obtain and hold employment. The medical evidence – usually the VA medical reports and opinions – must demonstrate that the veteran has the functional capacity, notwithstanding his/her service-connected disability(ies), to perform steadily, reliably and competently in a real-world work environment.
In addition, the VA is not permitted to consider a veteran’s participation in a VA rehabilitation or retraining program as evidence of employability. Rather, to reduce a TDIU rating, the VA must independently establish by clear and convincing evidence that the veteran’s service-connected condition has so improved that he/she can presently perform the vocation for which he/she is being trained.
Finally, § 3.343(c) prohibits the VA from basing a reduction solely upon a veteran having secured substantial gainful employment, unless the veteran has had the same employment for a 12-month consecutive period.
While in theory subject to a reduction, TDIU ratings should, in the vast majority of cases, be permanent ratings in fact. The standard for reducing TDIU awards is very high, and veterans service representatives should carefully evaluate the medical evidence upon which the VA bases its proposed reduction. Ninety percent of the time, the VA’s medical evidence falls short of meeting the high burden of proof. On the rare occasion the evidence of record does meet this standard, veteran representatives should encourage their clients to obtain rebuttal medical evidence from their treating physicians.
One of the most frequent errors seen in VA adjudication is the flawed development of VA examinations addressing the functional effects of flare-ups of a service-connected disability. In many cases, a VA examiner states that he/she cannot offer an opinion on the effects of flare-ups because the claimant was not experiencing a flare-up at the time of the examination.
In Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26 (2017), the Veterans Court made clear that a flare-up need not occur during a VA examination in order to evaluate its functional effects:
[N]either the law nor VA practice requires that an examination be conducted during a flare for the functional impairment caused by flares to be taken into account. Instead, DeLuca and its progeny clearly, albeit implicitly, anticipated that examiners would need to estimate the functional loss that would occur during flares…” Id. at 34.
Instead, Sharp requires VA examiners to ask claimants to describe the severity, frequency, duration, precipitating and alleviating factors of flare-ups, and to show their overall functional impairment. Id. at 34; see id. at 35 (“the Court’s case law and VA guidelines anticipate that examiners will offer flare opinions based on estimates derived from information procured from relevant sources, including the lay statements of veterans”).
While neither the examiner nor the VA is required to accept a claimant’s lay statements, both must consider them, along with all the other evidence of record, in evaluating the extent of the functional effect of flare-ups.
Practice Pointer: Always carefully review VA orthopedic or neurological examinations of the spine and upper and lower extremities. If the disability goes through flare-ups, loss of movement, including loss of flexion or extension, is almost always in issue. Be sure that the examiner has asked for and considered the veteran’s lay statements about the effects of flare-ups. If not, the veteran’s representative should ask the VA to return the VA examination report to the same examiner for a proper opinion on the flare-up issue.
Practice Pointer: Section § 3.304(f)(5) provides numerous ways to establish/corroborate the occurrence of an alleged MST. VSOs should carefully read this regulation and determine which source(s) is most likely to corroborate the MST for the particular claim. Military personnel files are frequently helpful in establishing “behavior changes” resulting from a MST. Look to see if there has been a decline in performance evaluations or cited misconduct soon after the alleged MST. Military service records may sometimes be a valuable source, even if the veteran did not specifically seek treatment for the trauma. For example, notations of rapid weight loss or gain or disturbance of mood may be evidence of psychological trauma, thus serving to corroborate the MST.
A veteran is presumed to have been in good health prior to service if her/his entrance examination does not note the existence of the specific condition or disability:
[E]very veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted,and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment . . . .
38 U.S.C. § 1111; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b)
All service members must undergo an induction/entrance/enlistment examination just prior to their service. The resulting examination report may later be important in VA disability claims when there is a question as to whether the veteran’s disability existed prior to service. If the entrance examination report does not note the disability or condition in question, then it is presumed that it did not exist prior to service. The burden then falls on VA to rebut the presumption of soundness by clear and unmistakable evidence that an injury or disease manifested in service preexisted service.
Keep in mind that the presumption of soundness applies even if the induction examination notes a history of the condition or its symptoms. A “[h]istory of preservice existence of conditions recorded at the time of examination does not constitute a notation of such conditions.” 38 C.F.R.§ 3.304(b)(1). The presumption will apply unless the disability existed and was noted at the time of the examination.
Example: The case of Crowe v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 238 (1994) illustrates this principle. The veteran underwent two entrance examinations for two distinct periods of service. Neither examination report noted a condition of asthma at the time of the examination. However, both examination reports noted a history of asthma in early childhood, but no recurrence of the condition. The Veterans Court held that the veteran’s asthma was not noted within the meaning of § 1111 and § 3.304(b). Therefore, the presumption of soundness applied.
If the presumption applies, the government can only rebut it by clear and unmistakable evidence that an injury or disease manifested in service preexisted service. This is a very stringent standard.
Example: The case of Kinnaman v. Principi, 4 Vet.App. 20 (1993) well illustrates the high level of proof required to rebut the presumption of soundness. The veteran sought service-connection for keratoconus of his eyes, claiming this illness first manifested during his Coast Guard service. No eye disability was noted in the induction examination. In service, Dr. Harmon, a military physician, tentatively diagnosed appellant with keratoconus. Later, Dr. Harmon wrote that “history and ocular signs indicate that the condition was present prior to Coast Guard induction.” Id. at 27. After making a final diagnosis of early keratoconus, Dr. Harmon wrote in his report that “whether or not the condition existed prior to entry into the Coast Guard cannot be stated with absolute certainty, although it is probable that the process began earlier.” Id.
Based upon Dr. Harmon’s opinion, the Board denied service-connection, finding the presumption of soundness had been rebutted.
Reversing the Board’s finding and remanding for an award of service-connection, the Veterans Court explained:
[T]he question becomes whether a doctor’s statement that there are signs which indicate or suggest that the condition was present prior to induction and his opinion that it is probable, but not absolutely certain, that the condition began prior to service constitute clear and unmistakable evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of sound condition. We hold that in this case this evidence, even when considered with the evidence that was noted by the BVA, does not constitute clear and unmistakable evidence.
4 Vet.App. at 27.
Practice Tip: A copy of the entrance examination can typically be found in the veteran’s claims filed. If not found there, you will find a copy in the veteran’s personnel file. Upon request, a copy of the personnel file can be obtained from the National Archives (www.archives.gov).
If you are a Veteran or Veteran Service Officer/Representative and submitted documents to the Veterans Administration supporting a claim between August 1, 2015 through December 21, 2015 your documents may be among those lost.
Documents submitted between the above dates to the eBenefits and SEP Claim “Status Document” portals are permanently lost with no hope of recovery, even if you received a “successful” upload message at the time.
If you are affected by this VA error, contact your Congressman and let him or her know that the Veteran’s Administration failed you.
If you need help resolving this problem you can find an accredited Attorney, Claims Agent, or Veterans Service Organizations (VSO) Representative here.
Contact us if you are a Veterans Law Group client or have a VA disability claim on appeal.
Contact the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Robert Mac Donald at email@example.com and let him know the Veterans Administration failed you again.
(article originally published by Amanda Mineer on LinkedIn)
More and more we are seeing decisions coming out of the VA in which there is an inappropriate assignment of an effective date for the awarded disability. This bulletin will help you to understand proper application of 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a)so as to better prepare you for effective representation of your clients. Effective dates are key in order to calculate the retroactive pay. Getting a higher percentage for your client is only one step, the second is ensuring the proper effective date is applied.
The applicable statute, 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a), states:[T]he effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.
The applicable regulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2), states that the effective date is the date of application or the date entitlement to such compensation arose,whichever is later. (paraphrased)
In McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 28 (2000), the Veterans Court explained how effective dates should be assigned for claims that are pending and not finally adjudicated. By definition, a claim is not finally adjudicated until the appeal period has run, (and the claimant has not filed a timely appeal via a Notice of Disagreement or Form 9) or the claim has been denied on appellate review. 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(d).
The McGrath court instructed that effective dates are determined by the later of two dates: (1) the filing date of the pending claim, and (2) If claim for serviceconnection, the date when disability manifested or arose. If claim is for increased rating, the date when the disability increased. Under #2, the ratings examiner or DRO must base his/her finding on the medical evidence. Id. at 35-36.
Importantly, the McGrath court made clear that, in assigning an effective, the date of the submission or preparation of the medical evidence is irrelevant. Id. at35 (“when an original claim for benefits is pending, as the Board found here, the date on which the evidence is submitted is irrelevant”). Rather, the relevant date is the date the disability arose or increased, as opined in the medical report or record.
Example: A veteran is seeking the earliest effective date for an increased rating of 60% for service-connected back disability in connection with a pending claim filed in August 12, 2009. In a VA examination report dated February 2, 2015,the physician indicated that in his opinion the level of the veteran’s back disability increased to 60% by May 13, 2005. Therefore, according to the McGrath case,the date of the report, (here February 2, 2015), is irrelevant. The relevant dates are: 1) the filing of the claim, August 12, 2009, and 2) the date the back disability increased to 60%, May 13, 2005, as stated by the VA examiner in his report. The proper effective date is the later of the two: August 12, 2009.
When reviewing a decision from your client, please be sure to review for proper effective date and submit and NOD citing the McGrath case when appropriate. It’s also helpful to specifically outline in the NOD what the effective date should be. In the above example, we would simply indicate on the NOD the following:Veteran’s claim was filed on August 12, 2009. The medical report indicates that increased disability rose to the 60% level as of May 13, 2005. The effective date of the 60% should be August 12, 2009. Under the McGrath case, the date of the physician’s report is not the relevant date. McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 28 (2000) Therefore, please correct the effective date of the 60% rating to be effective August 12, 2009.”
If you have any questions regarding this Bulletin, please feel free to contact our office.
In theory, the VA rating schedule is based upon the veteran’s loss of earning capacity caused by a service-connected disability. The VA compensates the veteran due to the loss of capacity to earn income. Functional impairment is one of the most obvious factors that affect the loss of earning capacity. If a service connected disability impairs the veteran’s ability movement, strength, coordination, speed or endurance, the veteran has less earning capacity. see 38 C.F.R. § 4.40.
In performing C&P examinations and writing reports, many VA examiners frequently overlook or incorrectly measure functional impairment caused by pain and especially the pain and loss of motion during flare-ups (times in which the pain or disability is particularly bad). When a veteran has pain during motion, say, during flexion or extension of the lumbar spine, the examiner must measure and discuss in his report any additional loss of range of motion associated with the pain. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 32, 44 (2011).
Many times, a veteran’s pain (or the worst pain) occurs during flare-ups and often, flare-ups are not occurring at the time of a C&P examination. When reviewing the C&P exam, a VSO should look for two things (1) If there is pain with motion, measurement of where the pain starts (2) VA examiner must ask a claimant to describe in his/her own words the limitation of movement or other functional impairment caused by a flare-up. For example, a claimant should be prepared to tell the examiner just how much less he/she can bend the back or move an arm during flare-ups. If neither of these exist, it is cause for challenging the C&P exam.
Remember, in carrying out its duty to assist, the VA must do more than provide an examination – it must provide an adequate one. If the C&P exam is inadequate, a VSO can then identify the inadequacy to the VA and request that a new exam be scheduled.