UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 06-1925
RA N D A LL D. R E IZE N ST E IN , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. J A M ES B. P EA KE , M.D., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ’ A pp e a ls
(Argued May

20, 2008 Dec ided J uly 16, 2008 )

Kenneth M. Carpenter , of To pe ka , K ans a s, fo r t

he a pp e lla nt. Thomas E. Sullivan, wi th who m Paul J. Hutter , Ac ting General Couns e l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant G ener al Counsel; and Gayle E. Strommen , D e puty As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l; wer e on the br ief, a ll of Washington, D.C., for the appellee

. Be fore HAGEL , L ANCE , and DA VI S, Judges

. HAGEL , Judge : T his c a se is b e fo re the Court to re so lve the qu e sti on

of wh e the r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .3 43 (a ), re g ard ing the c on tin uatio n of tot a l dis a

bil ity ra tin g s, a pp lie s wh e n th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Appea ls (Boa

rd) a ssigns s t ag ed ratings that include a tempora ry total disabilit y

ratingand a subsequent lower

ratingin the same de cision. Rand a ll D . Re ize ns te in, thr ou g h c ouns e l, a pp e a ls a Ma rc h 7 , 2 00 6, B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ) d e c isi on

tha t ( 1) de nie d e nti tle me nt t o a n in iti a l disa

bil ity ra tin g fo r p os t- tr a

umatic stress disorder

in excess of 30% fr om November 7, 1996, to Dec ember 1, 1996; (2) gr anted a 50% dis a bil ity ratin g fr om De c e mbe r 2, 19 96 , to Ma rc h 21 , 19 98 ; (3 ) g ra

nte d a te mpo ra ry tot a l di sa bil ity ratingfrom March 22, 1998, to May 5, 1999; and (4) denied a disability ratingin excess of 30% fr om May 6, 1999. R. at 1-17. For

the re asons that follow, the Court will affirm the B oard' s Marc h 2006 decision.A G l ob al Ass es s ment o f F un ct i oni ng s core r epre s ent s "t he cl i ni ci an' s j udgment of t he i ndi vi dual ' s over al l l eve l 1 of f u n ct i on i n g " an d i s "u s ef u l i n pl an n i n g t r ea t men t an d mea s u r i n g i t s i mpac t [ ] a n d i n pr edi ct i n g ou t come
. " D IA G N O S T IC A ND S T A T I S T I C A L M A N U A L O F M E N T A L D I SO RD ERS 3 0 (4 th e d . 1 9 9 4 ); s e e Ri c ha r dv
. Br own , 9 V et

. A p p
. 26 6 , 26 7 (19 9 6 ).

D ysth ym ia is a d iso rd e r c h a ra c te riz e d b y sym p to m s o f m ild d e p re ssio n . D OR L A ND ' S I L L US T R A T E D M E DI CAL 2 D I C T I ONA R Y 5 9 0 (31 st ed

. 20 0 7 ). 2 I. F AC TS Mr. Reizenstein served on a ctive duty in the U.S

. Marine Corps from May 1968 to May 1970, inc lud ingse rv ic e in V ie tna m. R . at 2; see also R. at 116. He a lso served in th e U. S

. Army from November

1974 to J uly

1977, and in the U.S. Navy from De cembe r 1980 to Fe bruar y 1981. Id. I n October

1996, he filed a

claim for V A compe n s at i o n for post-tra umatic stress disorder

. R

. at 2 3

. I nDe ce m b e r 1 9 9 6 , h e u n d erwe n ta V A " p o s t -t rau m at i c s t re s s d i s o rd er ex am , " al t h o u gh that examination focused mainly on his claim for a

back c ondition. R . at 49-51. The examination g ave a n "impre ssion" of post-tra umatic stress disorder. R. at 51. A private phy sician examined Mr. Reizenstein in Dec ember 1996, at t he request of VA , and g ave a diag nosis of alcohol abuse , major depre ssi o n , an d mix ed per sonality disorder w ith antisocial features, and a ssigne d a Global As se ss men t of Func tio nin g sc or e of 50

. R. at 48 . A lso in D e c e mbe r 1 99 6, ano the r p ri vate 1 phy si cia n, a g a in o n r e fe rr a l f ro m V A, e xami ne d M r. Re ize ns te in a nd dia g no se d c hr on ic po sttraumatic stre ss disorder, a nd alcohol and poly substance a buse, and a ssigne d a Global Asse ssment
o f F u n c t i o n i n g s co re o f 50 , n o t i n g t h at t h e hi gh es t s co re i n t h e pa s t y ea r wa s 7 5

. R

. at 5 7 -5 9

. In Aug ust 1997, a VA re g ional office issued a rating de cision in which i t denied entitlement to VA be ne fi ts b e c a

us e it fo un d the re wa s " no c on fi rm e d d ia g no sis of po st- tr a umatic str e ss d iso rd e r. " R. at 116. I n Marc h 1998, Mr. Reizenstein was admitted to the Gra nd J unction, Colorado, VA medic al

c e nte r " Psy

c hiatr y Se rv ic e " wi th a

n " ini tia l im

pr e ssi on " of

a lc oh ol i nto xicatio n, ha llu c inatio ns , dy sthy mia, hy perte nsion, and post-traumatic stre ss disorder. R. at 135. He re mained in the hospital 2 for four day s, and upon discharg e was diag nosed wit h, among other conditions, alcohol dependenc e, "post-tr aumatic s t re s s disorder by history ," dy sthy

mia, and per sonality

disorder. R. at 134. The discharg e re port reve als " [h] allucinations , v isual, with alcohol only ; auditory with alcohol only ." Id. Mr . Re ize ns te in w a s a ssi g ne d a Gl ob a l A sse ssm e nt o f F un c tio nin g sc or e of " c ur re nt 3 1, hig he st is a 41 ." Id.3

I n Aug ust 1998, Mr. Reizenstein, through c ounsel, filed a Notice of Disag ree ment with the Aug ust 1997 reg ional office decision. R. at 140-45. In April 1999, the re g ional office issued a ratingdecision g rantingservice connec tion f or post-traumatic stress disorder and assig ning a 30% disability ratingeff ective No v em ber 7, 1996. R. at 153- 56. The re g ional office stated that it was resolving doubt about the orig in of Mr. Reizenstein's condition in his f avor. R. at 154- 55. I n J une 1999, Mr. Reizenstein filed a Notice of Disag ree ment with the assig ned disability rating . R. at 164- 66. I n an Oc tober 1999 ra ting de cision and an October 2000 Statement of t he C ase, the reg ional office continued the 30% disability rating , and in June 2001, the B oard de nied entitlement to a hig her initial dis ability

rating

. R. at 178-80, 191-200, 246-54. Mr. Re izenstein appeale d and, in Octobe r 20 02 , th is C ourt

g ra nte d a joi nt m oti on

fo r r e mand

in o rd e r f

or the B oa rd to p ro vid e an ad e qu a te discussion of Mr. Reizenstein's e ntitlement to st ag ed ratings. R. at 258, 261. I n May 2003, the B oard r emande d Mr. Reizenstein's c laim for complianc e with the Ve tera ns Cla ims As sis tanc e Ac t of 20 00 , Pu b. L . N o. 10 6- 47 5, 11 4 Stat. 20 96 (c od if ie d in pa rt a t 38 U. S.C. § 5103), as we ll as to aff

ord Mr. Rez ienstein a psychiatric examination to reconcile the conflicting repor ts reg ardingthe seve rity

and natur e of his psy chiatric disorder. R. at 315- 19. I n M ay 20 04 , Mr. Re ize ns te in und e rw e nt a psyc hiatr ic e xami natio n pe rf or me d by a pr ivate ph y sic ian at th e re qu e st o f V A. R. at 34 7- 50 . T hat phy sic ian h a d a lso e xami ne d Mr. Re ize ns te in in Dece mber 1996. The examiner stated: [Mr. Reiz enstein' s] current [ Global Assessment of Functioning score] [of 60] is now fre e of c ontribution s from alc ohol and drugabuse a nd ref lects only the ong oing sequela e of the [post -traumatic stress disorder ], which in his case is primarily social im pai rm ent

. . . . Oc c up a tio na lly he is n ot i mpa ir e d at a ll a nd in f a c t ha s h e ld h is curr ent job fo r t h e last 16 y ear s and maintains that he likes it and func tions well at it

. T h e s o c ia l im

p a ir me n t is h is te n d e n c y to r e ma in w it h d r aw nan d r e a ll y s o c ia li ze primarily with othe r veter ans. He tends to shop at nig ht to avoid people and ha s had difficulty maintaining longterm re lationships given his past thre e divorc es. . . . . Given the f

ortuitous coincidence that Ihad see n Mr. Reizenstein for Social Servic e [seven-and- a-ha lf] y ear s ag o, it became evident on evaluating him on this occasion that he is slow ly imp ro vin g
. Ce rt a inl y muc h of thi s is du e to g e tti ng a ha nd le on his substance abuse proble ms. The sy mptomatology

of [post-traumatic stress disorde r] is now less intense and he has bee n able to g et rid of war-r elated material that he had4

felt a ne ed to expose himself to, and has stopped g oing out of his home armed sinc e h e d o e s n o t

f e e l a s t h r e a t e n e d

d u r i n g t h e d ay. R. at 350. I n Dec ember

2004, and ag ain in J uly 2005, th e reg ional office issued Supplemental Statements of t he C ase denying e ntitlement to an initi al disability ratingin excess of 30%. R. at 356- 66, 400-02. Mr. Reizenstein appe aled to the B oard. I n Marc h 2006, the Board issued the de cision on appea l in which it denied entitlement to an ini tia l di sa

bil ity ratin g in exc e ss of

30 %; g ra nte d a 50 % d isa bil ity ratin g fr om D e c e mbe r 2 , 1 99 6, to Marc h 21, 1998; gr anted a temporar y total disa bility rating from Marc h 22, 1998, to May 5, 1999; and denie d a disability

ratingin excess of 30% from May 6, 1999. R. at 1-17. The B oard g rante d the tempora

ry total disabilit y

ratingbeca

use "when [ Mr. R eizenstein] was a dmitted to the hospit al [i n Marc h 1998], i t appea rs that [his] [Global Assessment o f Fu n ct ioning sc ore] beca me more
sever e." R. at 15. Furthe r, the B oard state d: Thoug h the attenda

nt treatment re cord doe s not indicate a d i s charg e diag nosis of [post -traumatic stress disorder ] and ins tead r ender s a primar y diag nosis of alcohol depende nce, it is noted that the May 2004 examinatio n re p o rt did not ex clude the possibili ty

that the [Global Asse ssment of Func tioning score ] of 31 [i n the hospital discharg e re port] wa s i n part due to [ his] [post -traumatic stress disorder ] sy mptomatology

. Id. The B oard the ref

ore r esolved any doubt in Mr. Reizenstein's fa vor and g rante d a tempora ry total disability ratingfrom Mar ch 22, 1998. Id. The Boa rd next re lied on a May

6, 1999, VA tre atment
no te t o fi ndth at, as o f t hat dat e, "t he s ever it y of s y mp to mat ol ogy

hadabat ed. " Id. Ba sed on that treatment note and re cords f rom that time forwa

rd, the B oard de termined that Mr. Reizenstein was only entitled to a 30% disability ratingfrom that date . R. at 15-17. On appe al, Mr. R eizenstein argues that the B oard pr ovided an inade quate state ment of

rea sons or bases f

or its assignme nt of disability rating s less than 100%, and f or its assignme nt of an eff ective d a te o f M ar c h 2 2 , 1 9 9 8 , f o r th e 1 0 0 % d is a

b il it y r a ti n g
. Ap p e ll an t' s B r ie f ( B r
. ) a t 6. Fur ther, he argues t hat the B oard r educe d his temporary total disabilit y

ratingwithout comply ing with the require ments of 38 C.F.R. § 3.343(a) and failed to provide an adequate s tatement of r easons or bases for this reduc tion. Appellant' s Br

. at 16. Mr. R eizenstein argues t hat t he C ourt should gr ant5

him a 10 0% dis a

bil ity ratin g fr om May 6, 19 99 , be c a us e the re wa s no law fu l bas is fo r the B oa rd to reduc e the total d i s ab i l i t y ratingwithout prior compliance with the require ments of § 3.343(a ). Appellant' s Br . at 28. I n his brief, the Sec reta

ry states that Mr. Reizenstein' s claim should be re manded be cause the Boa rd provided a

n inadequate statement of r easons or bases, in that it failed to address the applicability

of § 3.343(a)

. Secre tary ' s Br . at 6. He a rgues that re mand, rather than r ever sal, is the appropr iate re medy

beca use re versa l is only appropr iate in a case of cle ar e rror , not, as here , wher e the B oa rd ha s fa ile d to add

re ss al l pote nti a lly a

pp lic a ble laws
. Se c re tary ' s Br . at 7 . A t or a l argume nt, howeve r, the Sec reta

ry clar ified his position and argued that § 3. 3 43(a) was not applica ble in the

c on te xt of sta g e d r a tin g s. On M ay 27, 2008, afte r oral argument, the C ourt issued an order requesting a memora ndum of law f rom t h e S ec re t ary

reg ardingthe re g ulatory history of § 3.343 and the Secre tary ' s usual prac tice in appl y i ng that regulation. The Secr etar y submitt ed a me morandum ar g uing that the regulatory

history demonstrates that § 3.343(a) w as not intended to be applied to stag ed ratings a nd that it was meant only

to protect ratings that wer e already in eff ect f rom reduc tion without evidence that the condition had improved. Sec reta ry ' s Supplemental (Supp.) Memora ndum (Mem.) at 1-5. Th e Se c re tary

c on te nd s th at a te mpo ra

ry tot a l disa

bil ity ra tin g lik e that at issu e he re is n ot " in e ff e c t" fo r t he purp os e s o f § 3. 343(a) bec a us e " the c on c e pt o f a

sta g e d r a tin g ne c e ssi tate s th a t so me i n cr em en t al t i m e p er i o d s ar e r at edas l es s t h an t o t al b as edo nt h e e v i d en ce o f r e c o r d

. " S ec re t ary 's Supp. Mem. at 5. The Secr etar y also asser

ts that it i s t h e prac tice of V A to provide e x aminations wher e a total r ating has bee n in effe ct for a period of time a nd a re duction in rating is contemplated, but that § 3.343(a) ha s not been applied in the context of stag ed ratings. Sec reta ry ' s Supp. Mem. at 5-6. He argues that this prac tice is appropr iate bec ause § 3.343( a) is prospe ctive in nature, wher eas sta g e d r a tin g s are ret ros pect iv e , r e qu ir ingthe ratin gbo dy to r e vie w e vid e nc e a lr e a dy of re c or d to d e te r mi n e th e a

p p r o p r iate le v e ls an d

d u r a ti o n s o f

p arti c u la r d is a b il it y r a ti n g s
. Se c r e ta

r y ' s Su p p. Mem. at 6. I n support of t his positi on, the Secr etar y has submitted a statement fr om Bra dley Flohr, Assistant Direc tor of Policy for the Compensation and Pension Service. See Se c re tary ' s Su pp . M e m. Ex hibit (Ex h.) 3.6

I n response , Mr. Reizenstein contends that the Sec reta ry has not addre ssed th e i ssue of regulatory

histor y ra i s ed b y the Court in its May 27, 2008, order , beca

use there is no regulatory his tor y re g ard ingthe a

pp lic a bil ity of § 3 .3 43 (a ) t o s ta g e d r a ting s. Spe c if ic a lly , M r. Re ize ns te in argues that stag ed ratings have only exis ted since this Court' s decision in Fe nders on v. W est , 12 Ve t

. Ap p
. 1 1 9 (1 9 9 9 ), an d t h at VA h as n o t t ak en an y ac t i o n i n re s p o n s e t o t h at d ec i s i o n
. Ap p el l an t 's Supp. Mem. at 1-2. Ther efor e, Mr. Reizenstein asser ts, the responsibility

for inter preting§ 3.343(a) as it applies to stag ed ratings lies squar ely with th e C o u rt . Appellant' s Supp. Mem. at 2. Mr. Reizenstein also argues that Mr. F lo hr ' s tw o - p a r a gr a ph statement re g ardingVA' s prac tice in applying § 3 .3 43 (a ) " ra ise s mo re qu e sti on s th an it ans we rs ," and

" inv a de s th e pr ov inc e of

thi s Co ur t," be c a us e the matter is pure ly

a question of law . Appellant' s Supp. Mem. at 5.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Ap p l i cab i l i t y

o f 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 3

. 3 4 3 (a ) t o S t age d R at i n gs W h en a cl ai m an t i s aw ar d ed s erv i ce co n n ec t i o n an d as s i gn ed an i n i t i al d i s ab i l i t y r a t i n g,
se pa rate dis a bil ity ra tin g s ma y be a ssi g ne d for se pa

rate pe ri od s o f t ime in a c c or da nc e wi th t he fa c ts found. Such separ ate disability rating s are known as stag ed rating s. S ee F enderson , 12 Vet.App. at 126 (noting that stag ed ra tings a re a ssigne d at the time an initial disability ratingis assigne d). Section 3.343(a) of Title 38, Code of F eder al Reg ulations, provides: "Tota l disabilit y rating s, when

war rante d by the seve rity o f t h e co n d ition and not gr anted pur ely beca use of hospital, surg ical, or home t reatment, or i ndividual unemploy ability [,] will not be reduce d, in the absenc e of c lear err or, without ex amination showing materia l improvement in phy sical or menta l condition." The Court is asked to deter

mine whether

§ 3.343(a) applies to stag ed ratings. This is a question of law that the Court considers de novo. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 1) ; see also Smith v. Gobe r , 14 Vet.App. 227, 230 (2000). Although Mr

. Reizenstein is corr ect that stag ed ratings have only been in exis tence since the Court's 1999 de cision in Fende rson , some version of what bec ame § 3.343( a) ha s been in e x istence since 1934. Compare Veter an' s Reg ulation No. 3(a) , I nstr. 3, Para. 5 ( Mar. 27, 1934) with 38 C.F .R. § 3.343 (1961) and 38 C.F .R

. § 3. 34 3( a ) ( 20 08 ). F ro m th a t le ng thy his tor y , th e Court

is a ble to7

discern the purpose be hind § 3.343( a) and deter mine if that purpose is f

urthere d by

the application of that re g ulation to stage d rating s. The re g ulatory

history provided by

the Secr etar

y ind ic a te s th a t C o n gr e s s ' s p u

r p ose in ena cting the Independe nt Office s Appropriation Act o f 1 935, which g ave r ise to I nstruction Number 3 a nd Parag raph 5 the reof

, was to re store vete rans ' d isability rating s that had bee n sever ed under prior leg islation. See Pub. L

. No. 73-141, Title I I I , §§ 26 et seq

. (1934) ( "Wher e ser vice c onnection . . .

was . . . e stablished . . . and such c onnection has be en seve red through the a p p l i ca t i on of, or reg ulations or instructions prom u l gat edu n d er P u b l i c Law Nu mb er

2 , S ev en t y -t h i rdC o ngress, ser vice

c onne c tio n is he re by

re e sta bli sh e d. " ); see also VA G en
. C o un. Prec. 3- 2003, § 6 (Jul y 16, 2003) (" Public L aw 73- 141 . . . provided for restoration of service -conne cted disability awa rds that had been se vere d under prior statutes.")

. I nstruction 3, Parag raph 5 of Veter ans Reg ulation Number 3 pr ov ide d, in p e rt ine nt p art : 5. Continuance of total disability rating s here tofore ma de. Total disability

rating s made pursua

nt to the criteria

established under the prior g ener al and se rvice pension laws, th e W ar Risk I nsuranc e Ac t, as amende d, or the World W ar Vetera

ns Act, 1924, as amended, f or pension or disability

compensation purp os e s, wh e n w arr ante d b y the se ve ri ty

of the c on dit ion , and no t g ra nte d p ur e ly beca use of hospitalization or home treatment, . . . w ill not be reduce d, in the absenc e of c le ar e rr or , w ith out phy sic a l e xami natio n s ho wi ngmate ri a l im pr ov e me nt i n phy sical condition. (Mar . 27, 1934). The Court a g r e e s w it

h th e Se c r e ta

r y th a t th e c a

p ti o n an d te xt o f th is I n s tr u c ti o n , which eventua lly

beca me § 3.343(a ), sug g est that it a pplied only to r ating s alre ady in e ffe ct. " Her etofore "

means "up until now; until the prese nt; be fore this" (W EB S TER ' S N EW W OR L D D I CT I O N A RY 631 (3d ed. 1988)) , a def

inition t hat sug g ests that the Instruction was rele vant only to rating s that had p re v i o u s l y

b ee nm ad e a n d

t h at VA wa s co n t em p l at i n g re d u ci n g pr os

pecti v e ly . Fur

ther, that the I n s tr u c ti o na p p li e d to r a ti n g s a s s ig n e d

u n d e r " p r io r g e n e r a l a n d s e r v ic e p e n s io nla

w s " le a d s to the conclusion that it was applica ble to rating s that had been established at some ear lier time. T aken a s a whole, the plain lang uag e of the I nstruction demonstrates that it was intended to protec t vetera ns who had c ome to rely

on disability rating s, and the compensation attache d there to, alre ady in effe ct from ar bitrary reduc tions in those rating s without evidence that their condition had improved. T hatT he C our t not es t hat t he I ns t r uct i on b eca me [ R at i ng and P ens i on R egu l at i on] 1 17 0 i n J anu ar y 193 6, an d t hen 3 b e c a m e V A R e g u la tio n 1 1 7 0 (A ) in A p ril 1 9 5 5

. See Se cret ary ' s S up p
. M em
. E xh. 2. T hat regul at i o n was cod i f i ed i n t he C o d e o f Fed eral R egul at i o ns i n F eb ruary 1 9 6 1 , w i t h rem o val of t he p o rt i o n of t he t ext t hat read " m ad e p urs uant t o t he cri t eri a est ab l i shed und er t he p ri o r general and s ervi ce p ensi o n l aws, t he W ar R i sk Ins urance A ct , as am end ed , or t he W o rl d W ar V et erans A ct , 1 9 2 4 , as am end ed , f o r pensi o n or d i sabil i t y co m p ensat i o n purp o ses
. " T he rel evant l anguage o f t he regul at i o n has rem ai ned unchanged s i nce 1 9 6 1 , how ever, and t he current vers i o n of § 3.34 3 reads, i n pe rt i nent p a rt: § 3 .34 3 C o nti nu an ce o f t o t al d i sab i l i t y rat i ng s. ( a) G en er al

. T ot al di s abi l i t y r at i n g s , wh en wa r r an t ed by t h e s ev er i t y of t h e con di t i on a n d n ot g r an t ed pu r el y be ca u s e of ho spi t al , s urgi cal , or ho m e t reat m ent , o r i nd i vi d ual une m p l o y ab i l i t y wi l l not b e reduc ed , i n t he ab sence of cl ear err o r, wi t ho ut exam i nat i o n s ho wi ng m at eri al i m p rovem ent i n phys i cal or m ent al co nd i t i o n.
3 8 C

. F.R

. § 3

. 3 4 3 (a) (20 0 8 ).

8 the text of § 3.343(a) is, with some small chang es, essentially the s ame as I nstruction 3, Parag raph 5, leads to the conclusion that the regulation is int ended to se rve the same purpose today as the I nstruction did in 1934. 3 Havingdeter

mined the purpose behind § 3.343(a), the Court must now consider whether that purpose is fur

there d by the application of the regulation to stage d rating s. As noted above , stag ed rating s are a series of sepa rate rating s applied in the first i nstance for se parate per iods of time, based on all the evidenc e of r ecor d. See F enderson , 12 Vet. App. at 126. By their ver y nature , stag ed

ratin g s are re tr os pe c tiv e , me ant t o p ro pe rl y c omp e ns a te a

c la ima nt f or pe ri od s o f t ime wh e n h is condition was more or

less sever e than i t i s at the time the rating de cision is actually made. See O'Connell v. Nicholson , 21 Vet.App. 89, 93 (2007) ( "B eca use the c laims process be fore the ag ency
ca nb e l en gt h y , an d

b ec au s e t h e l ev el o f a v et er an 's d i s ab i l i t y m ay fl u ct u at e o v er

t i m e, s t age d

ra t i n gs
are a sensible mec hanism for a llowing the a ssignment of the most precise disability rating –one that

acc ounts for the possible dy namic natur e of a

disability while the claim works its way throug h the adjudication proc ess." ). Her e, the Boa

rd soug ht to ensure that Mr. Reizenstein wa s proper ly compensat ed fo r t he vary ing se verity

of his condition during the pendenc y of his appeal of his initial disabili ty rating by undertaking a

complete r eview of

the evidenc e to deter m i n e t he appr opriate disability rating s and the cor rec t effe ctive periods for those rating s. At the time of the B oard' s Marc h 2006 decision, Mr. Reizenstein was in rec eipt of only a 30% disability

ratingfor post-tra

umatic stress disorder . TheFor e xampl e, M r
. Rei zen s t ei n w oul d hav e t he C our t r ei ns t at e h i s t emp orar y t ot al di s abi l i t y r at i ng f r om M ay 4 6, 199 9, an d order t he B oard t o provi de a med i cal exa mi nat i on t o det er mi ne t he c u rre n t l ev el of i mpai r men t c au s ed by hi s p o st

- t raum at i c st res s d i sord er. H o wever, i t ap p ears l i kel y , b ased upo n t he M ay 2 0 0 4 m ed i cal exam i nat i o n, t hat M r. R ei zen s t ei n i s no l onger t ot al l y di s abl ed by hi s co ndi t i on. I f t he C our t wer e t o gr ant t he r el i ef he s eek s , i t i s poss i bl e t hat he wo uld b e o ve rco m p en sated at a 1 0 0 % rati ng f o r as m an y as 9 years. 9 Boa rd' s decision entitled him to "b a c k p a y " for the pe riods during which the B oard de termined that

a 50 % d isa

bil ity ratin g and

a te mpo ra ry tot a l di sa

bil ity ra ting wer e wa

rr ante d. Hi s w a s n ot a situation in which he was in re ceipt of a particula r leve l of comp en s ati on for a period of time a

nd the B oard' s decision abr

uptly reduc ed the amount of compensation he w as re ceivin g w it hout warning

or e vid e nc e that his co nd iti on ha d im pr ov e d. I n s ho rt , M r. Re ize ns te in i s n ot a me mbe r o f t

he c la ss of vete rans that Congr ess and VA soug ht to protec t w ith § 3.343(a) beca use he had not r elied for

any p er i o d o f t i m e o nt h e c o mp en s at i o np ro v i d edb y t h e t em p o ra ry

t o t al d i s ab i l i t y

ra t i n g. I n O'Co nn e ll , the Court was asked t o deter mine whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) , which per tains t o t h e n o t i fi ca t i o n VA m u s t p ro v i d e t o a v et er an re gar d i n g a p ro p o s edre d u ct i o ni nd i s ab i l i t y

ra t i n g,
a pp lie d in the c on te xt of

sta g e d r a tin g s. Th e Court ' s re a so nin g fo r f ind ingtha t it did no t is e qu a lly persua sive in this case: [The appellant] would have us compe l V A to f irst a ssign the highe r disability rating and then ha lt adjudication in order to issue a proposed r eduction and pr ovide the veter an with 60 day s i n wh i ch to submit additional evidenc e. B eca use . . . such proce dure w ould not further the underly ing pur pose of [t he regulation a

t issue], we ref use to compel it in the situation at hand.
O'Co nn e ll , 2 1 V e t.A

pp . at 93. Th e Court e xpla ine d that the purp os e un de rl ying § 3 .1 05 (e ) w a s to
ensure that veter ans in r ece ipt of a particula r disability rating "w ould be notified in advance that th e ir benef its would be diminis hed, thus e nabling them to (1) adjust to t he diminished ex pectation and (2)

subm it evi den ce to cont est th e redu cti on ." Id. (empha sis added). A s discussed above , the Court has deter mined that § 3.343(a) serve s a similar purpose: to pre vent the ar bitrary reduc tion of compensation pa id to ve tera ns who have come to re ly on a par ticular leve l of bene fits. Requiring VA to " halt adjudication" afte r assig ning a temporar y total disa

bility ratingas par

t of a stag ed rating to obtain a new medical e x amination would discourag e the use by VA of stag ed ratings that include a per iod of temporar

y total disabilit y and would often result in c ompensation beingpaid to a cla imant at a hig her le vel than he mig ht otherwise be entitled to for a pe riod of time. 410

B e c a us e sta g e d r a tin gs, su ch a s th os e the B oa rd a ssi g ne d in

thi s c a se , a

re re tr os pe c tiv e in nature , and beca

use § 3.343(a) is a regulation that c ontemplates prospec tive action, applying § 3.343 to s ta g e d r a tin g s " wo uld be imp os ing unne c e ssa ry pr oc e dure in a situ a tio n w he re su c h p ro c e dure is

un warra nt ed. " Id. Ac c or din g ly , the Court ho lds that § 3. 34 3( a ) is n ot a pp lic a ble to s ta g e d r a tin g s. B. Rea sons or Ba ses Mr. R eizenstein' s rema ining arguments perta in to the Board' s statement of re asons or ba ses for its d ec i s i o n. He a

rgues that the B oard did not ade quately explain it s rea sons for deny ing entitlement to (1) an initial disability ratingin excess of 30% for the per iod of Novembe r 7, 1996, to D ece mber 1, 1996; ( 2) a disability rating in e x cess of 50% f or the pe riod of De cembe r 2, 1996, to March 21, 1998; ( 3) a disability ratingin excess of 30% for the per iod beg inning Ma y 6, 1999; and (4) an ef

fec tive date e arlier

than Marc h 22, 1998, for a temp o ra ry t o t al disability rating . The Court disag ree s. I n rende ring its decision, the Boa rd i s require d to provide a written st atement of the rea sons or b a s e s f o r it s " f in d in g s an d c o n c lu s io n s [] o n a ll mate r ia l is s u e s o f f a c t an d la w p r e s e n te d o n the

rec ord." 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). The s tatement mus t be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the prec ise basis for the B oard' s decision, as we ll as to facilitate r eview in this Court. See G ilbert v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 57 ( 1990). To comply with this require ment, the Board must analy ze the

cre dibilit y

and probative value of the evidence, account for t he evidence that it finds to be per suasive or unper suasive, and pr ovide the re asons for its re jection of a

ny materia l evidence favor able to the claimant. Se e Caluz a v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 4 98 , 5 06 (1 99 5) . T he B oa rd may c omm it r e mand a

ble

err or whe n it fails to provide an a dequate statement of its reasons or ba ses. Se e Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 57. The B oar d th o r o u g h ly o u tl in e d th e r a ti n g s c h e d u le f o r p o s t- tr a

u mati c s tr e s s d is o r d e r

and

rec ounted the evide nce of rec ord. With respect to the initial disability ratingof 30%, a ssigne d for the pe ri od of No ve mbe r 7 , 1 99 6, to De c e mbe r 1, 19 96 , the B oa rd de te rm ine d th a t th e e vid e nc e did

no t su pp or t a fi nd ingof

" c on sid e ra

bl e" i nd us tr ia l im

pa ir me nt as a r esu lt o

f po st- tra um ati c str ess disorder symptomatology , f ind ingthat t

h e t r e a t m e nt r e c o r d s m a i n l y

c on c e rn e d d if

fi c ult ie s d ue to " his participation in a criminal trial, pre ssures at wor k, and a r ece nt breakup with a g irlfriend." R. at 14. Acc ording ly , the B oard f

ound that he was not entitled to a dis ability ratingin excess of 30% base d11

on "ma ni fe stations of [pos t-traumatic stre ss disorder]." Id. This statement demonstrate s that the Boa rd found that Mr. Re izensti en' s sy mptoms of p o s t

- tr a u m a t i c s tr es s di s o rd e r we re n o t severe
e no ug h d ur ingthi s ti me pe ri od

to w arr ant a

highe r di sab il it y

ratin g fo r t

hat c on dit ion . T his distinction i s further

demonstrated by

the B oard' s determination that the e videnc e conc erningthe time period betwe en De cembe r 2 , 1 9 9 6 , and Mar ch 22, 1998, wa rra nted a hig her disability

rating be c a us e Mr . Re ize ns te in h a d " c omp la ine d o f s y mpt oma tol og y re late d to [pos t- tr a

umatic str e ss di so rder ] ." Id. Reg arding the 50% disability rating assig ned for this period, the Boa rd determined that there

was no evidenc e that Mr. Reizenstein ha d "illog ical, obscure and irrele vant spee ch , u n p rovoked ir ri ta bil ity wi th pe ri od s of vio le nc e , or sp a tia l dis or ie ntatio n, " a s r e qu ir e d to su bs tanti a te a

dis a bil ity

ratin g of 70 %. R. at 15 ; see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diag nostic Code (DC) 9411. The Boa rd re lied

on thr e e me di cal e xami natio ns tha t f ound he did no t ha ve tho ug hts of

su ic ide , w a s a

pp ro pr iate ly g ro ome d, and

did no t e ng a g e in " ob se ssi on a l r itu a ls t hat in te rf e re d w ithda ily

ro uti ne a c tiv iti e s. " R. at 15. In addition, the Boa rd found that Mr. Reizenstein's employ ment status had " returne d to the st atu s q uo ." Id. . The B oard the ref ore f ound that a disability

ratin g in excess of 50% wa s not
war rante d. As of May 6, 19 99 , th e B oa

rd de te rm ine d th a t Mr . Re ize ns te in w a s n ot e nti tle d to a dis a bil ity ratingin excess of 30%. The Boa rd found that the se verity of his post-traumatic stre ss disorder sy mptomatology had abate d, in that various treatment rec ords indicated that he did not have suicida l or homicidal ideation; he wa s g ener ally well-g roomed; he did not evide nce a ny impaired judg ment or memory

problems; he did not have c ircum s t an t i al, circumlocutory , or stere oty ped spee ch, nor impaired a

bstract thinking , all of which are sy mptoms that could warrant a disability ratinghighe r tha n 30% . R. a t 15 -1 6; see 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411. The Boa rd relied heavily on the May 2004 examination because it was conduc ted by the same e x aminer who had conduc ted a De cembe r 1996 exami n a ti o n , an d

f o u n d it " p arti c u la

r ly h e lp f u l" in a s s ign in g s ta g e d

r a ti n g s
. R. a t 1 6

. T h e B o ard

no te d th a t th e May

20 04 e xami ne r f

ound no oc c up a tio na l im

pa ir men t and

le ss i nte ns e sy mptomatology overa ll. Id. T h e B o ar d al s o n o t edt h at t h e e x am i n er s t at edt h at M r. R ei z en s t ei n 's impairment as a r esult of post-traumatic stress di sorder tended to be social impairment, but that he was in a r elationship at the time of the exam and that he had been able to succe ssfully maintain work12

relationships

. Id. The B oard c oncluded that the e vidence did not ill ustrate that Mr. Re izenst ei n 's manifestations of post-tra umatic stress disorder

fit the sy

mpt o m atol og y

provided in the rating schedule for a

50% disability

ratin g an d t h er ef

ore de nied a r ating in excess of 30% fr om May 6, 1999. R. at 17. I n light of this discussion, the Court conclude s that the Boa rd' s statement of re asons or ba ses for its deter

minations that Mr. Reizenstein was not entitled to an initial disabili ty ratingin excess of 30 % f or the pe ri od

of No ve mbe r 7 , 1 99 6, to D e c e mbe r 1 , 1 99 6, no r to a disa bil ity ra tin g in e xce ss of 50 % f or the pe ri od

of De c e mbe r 2, 19 96 , to Ma rc h 21 , 19 98 , no r to a dis a bil ity ratin g in e xce ss of 30% f or the pe riod beg inning Ma y 6, 1999, is adequate. Se e Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 57. Th e Court

fi nd s Mr . Re ize ns te in' s argum ent wi th r e sp e c t to the e ff e c tiv e date of

his temporar y total disabilit y

ratingto be unper suasive. He co n t en d s t h at the evide nce on which the B oa rd re lie d in g ra

nti ng a te mpo ra

ry tot a l dis a

bil ity ratin g a s o f M arc h 2 2, 19 98 , c or re c tly su pp or ts an ef fec tive date f

or that rating of

Marc h 22, 1997 . He ba ses his arg ument on the Marc h 1998 ho sp ita l disc ha

rg e re po rt that sta te s tha t his Glo ba l A sse ssm e nt o f F un c tio nin g sc or e wa s " c ur re ntl y 31 , h ig he st i s 4 1. " R. at 13 4. He argue s that this state me nt i nd ic a te s th a t hi s h ig he st s c or e in t he pa st y e ar w a s 41, wh ic h warr ants a 10 0% dis a

bil ity ratin g e ff e c tiv e on e y e ar e arl ie r t

ha n th e date of

his

a dmi ssi on

to t he ho sp ita l. H ow e ve r, th e pl ain re a din g of tha t st a te me nt d oe s n ot s up po rt his argument. Fur

ther, a s the Boa

rd explained in its decision, it based its assignment of a temporar y total disability rating o n M r. Reizenstein's a dmission t o the hospital on Marc h 22, 1998, for a lcohol detoxi fication, and noted that it was then that his Global Assessment of Func tioning scor e had become "mor e seve re." R. at 15. The Boar d noted t hat t he hospi tal discharg e reported r evea led a primary diag nosis of alcohol depe ndence , but ga ve Mr. Reizenstein the bene fit of t he doubt, based

on the May 20 04 e xami natio n, that his s c or e of 31 a t th e tim e of

his ho sp ita lizatio n w a s r e late d to his post-traumatic stress disorde r. Id. Th e Court c on c lud e s th a t th e B oa

rd pr ov ide d a de qu a te
re a so ns or

ba se s f or a ssi g nin g Marc h 2 2, 19 98 , a s th e e ff e c tiv e date fo r a

te mpo ra ry tot a l di sa bil ity rating

. Se e Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 57. Accor dingly , th e C ourt will affirm the Ma rch 2006 B oard decision.13 III. CONCLUSION I n consideration of the fore g oing, the Marc h 7, 2006, Boa rd dec ision is AFFI RMED.