PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2014

The Veteran's PTSD has been rated at 70 percent since July 9, 2009. The Board denied an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD prior to that date and denied a TDIU claim.

The Board has ordered a remand to ensure the Veteran receives proper consideration of his claim for service connection for PTSD and anxiety. The case will be reviewed again after the VA examination.

The Veteran's posttraumatic stress disorder has been rated at 50 percent since the effective date of service connection, reflecting occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to inconsistencies in the December 2011 VA examination report regarding the severity of the Veteran's PTSD and its impact on employment.

The Veteran is found to be in need of regular aid and attendance due to service-connected PTSD, which cannot be distinguished from his nonservice-connected dementia. The claim for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance has been granted.

The Veteran's PTSD and anxiety disorder have been rated at the highest available rating of 70 percent since March 15, 2013, based on significant occupational and social impairment.

The Veteran's appeals for shin splints and a back disability have been dismissed due to withdrawal. The Board has granted service connection for generalized anxiety disorder and depressive disorder, but denied service connection for PTSD and/or adjustment disorder.

The Veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 70 percent, effective November 11, 2013. The rating reflects the severity of his symptoms and impairment in most areas.

The Board found no evidence of a combat-related stressor and the Veteran's current psychiatric disorders are not etiologically related to his active service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's death was not caused by or related to his service-connected conditions, including posttraumatic stress disorder and hypertension. The cerebrovascular disease is considered a separate condition unrelated to service.

The Board has remanded the case due to outstanding VA treatment records and will be reconsidered after obtaining them.

The Veteran's PTSD was initially rated at 30 percent prior to February 1, 2007. From February 1, 2007 to February 28, 2009, the Veteran's PTSD warranted a rating of no more than 50 percent. After that period, the Veteran's PTSD was rated at 70 percent from March 1, 2009.

The Board found no evidence of a current diagnosis of PTSD and concluded that the Veteran did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. The VA examiner's opinion was given more weight than the Veteran's own statements regarding his symptoms.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to consider whether an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD prior to June 1, 2012 and in excess of 70 percent since that date remains appropriate. The case must be reviewed with consideration of all relevant evidence including VA treatment records.

The Veteran's appeal for higher initial evaluations for PTSD and depression has been dismissed as the appellant expressed satisfaction with the January 2013 rating decision.

The Veteran's PTSD symptoms from October 16, 2008 to October 31, 2011 were not severe enough to warrant a rating higher than 50 percent. The appeal is denied.

The Veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 50 percent, which does not meet the criteria for a higher rating. The Board also found that the service-connected disabilities do not preclude the Veteran from securing and following substantially gainful employment.

The Board has determined that the reduction of the Veteran's PTSD evaluation from 100 percent to 50 percent was improper and restored the original 100 percent rating.

The appeal is being remanded due to the need for a new examination of the Veteran's PTSD, as the last examination was over six years ago. The case will be returned to the Board for further review.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his request for a Board hearing and the need to issue a statement of the case on two issues.