Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/17/director-of-cp-and-extrschedular-ratings/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:32:25+00:00

Document:
I think that pro se vets can find a lot of interesting information by reading dissenting opinions or in this case a concurring opinion with a qualified dissent.
respectfully dissent from the part of the decision that discusses the respective roles of the Director of C&P and the RO in cases meriting extraschedular consideration.
By sanctioning the Director of C&P’s analysis of the factors already considered by the RO or Board, the majority effectively transforms the Director of C&P into a fact-finder.
Specifically, the Director of C&P has been delegated the authority to draft the rating schedule, based “as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations.” 38 U.S.C. §1155; see also 38 U.S.C. § 501(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 2.6(b)(1), 3.100 (2008). The Director of C&P’s expertise is in determining the average earning capacity impairment due exclusively to the service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). This makes the Director of C&P uniquely suited to determining what extraschedular rating level is warranted.
(quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 359 (1989)); Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212 (1988) (declining to defer to “agency litigating positions that are wholly unsupported by regulations, rulings, or administrative practice”).
See Barringer v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 242, 243-44 (2008) (“The question of an extraschedular rating is a component of a claim for an increased rating.”) (citing Bagwell, 9 Vet.App. at 339).
Mayerick, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., for the appellee.
Before GREENE, Chief Judge, HAGEL and SCHOELEN, Judges.
April 4, 2006, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied veteran Robert A.
him service connection for bilateral hearing loss with a 10% disability rating. R. at 28-34, 123-24.
review officer (DRO). R. at 128-31. The DRO reported that during that conference he and Mr.
and from that time until 1997, he worked as a property manager. R. at 238. In September 2004, Mr.
consideration of an extraschedular rating. R. at 244.
In April 2006, the Board affirmed the RO determination awarding a disability rating of 10%.
during active service and in the line of duty are entitled to service-connected benefits. See 38 U.S.C.
applying the rating schedule to the specific numeric scores assigned by audiology testing.
Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 345, 349 (1992).
render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards.
claimant is entitled to an extraschedular rating under § 3.321(b) is a three-step inquiry.” Thun v.
v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 88, 95 (1996).
preferred career at a telephone company and caused him to quit several jobs.
extraschedular evaluation simply have not been met. . . . To the extent [Mr.
rating assigned to this disability.
of his appeal, and thus, beyond the Board’s jurisdiction.
by the Board that he had not met the requirements for referral for extraschedular consideration.
rating aspect of this claim”); see also 38 U.S.C. §§ 511(a), 7104(a) (“All questions in a matter . . .
jurisdictional statute, contains no limitations on the Board’s ability to review favorable findings.
rating was appropriate under all three elements set forth in Thun. See 22 Vet.App. at 116; 38 C.F.R.
affirm or reject the bases for the submission of the claim for extraschedular consideration, as Mr.
expressly provides for the RO to seek an advisory opinion on these matters. See 38 C.F.R.
time by the Director of C&P. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1); see Thun, 22 Vet.App. at 115; Floyd, supra.
that an extraschedular rating was not warranted because the record did not establish that Mr.
based on the letter from the Director of C&P. The Board’s review of the RO’s decision that Mr.
evaluation for his bilateral hearing disability. See Thun, 22 Vet.App. at 115; 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1).
picture does not meet the initial threshold for establishing that an extraschedular rating is warranted.
contemplated by the rating schedule.”).
§ 4.16 and interference with employment contained in § 3.321(b)(1) are different metrics); Stanton v. Brown, 5 Vet.App.
563, 564-70 (1993) (issue of extraschedular rating is separate from issue of TDIU rating).
adequately contemplated by the rating schedule is necessarily flawed.2 See Thun, supra.
Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 (2002).
the Board’s April 4, 2006, decision is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for readjudication.
extraschedular consideration is warranted.”) (emphasis added).
raise the issue and remand it for the proper procedural actions outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1).”).
disability.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). As the Floyd Court explained, “38 C.F.R.
officials who possess the delegated authority to assign such a rating.” Floyd, 9 Vet.App. at 95.
21 Vet.App. at 219 (“Rating specialists determine, through the rating schedule, the effect of a disability on a claimant’s ability to earn a living.”). By sanctioning the Director of C&P’s analysis of the factors already considered by the RO or Board, the majority effectively transforms the Director of C&P into a fact-finder.
first two Thun, supra, steps, the RO would be handcuffed in its ability to adequately compensate a veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.2.
administrative practice and 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1); accordingly the Court is not required to defer to the Secretary’s position. See Auer and Georgetown Univ. Hosp., both supra. Therefore, I respectfully concur with the majority’s decision, but not its discussion pertaining to the role of the Director of C&P.

References: §1155
 § 501
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v.

 § 3
 § 3

§ 4
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 § 3
 § 4
 § 3