Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/04/05/bva-duties-explain-why-symptoms-comport-with-rating-level-shoemaker-v-derwinski-no-90-1055/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:21:09+00:00

Document:
This is another in our series of BVA duties as set forth by the Veterans Court, this one in Shoemaker v. Derwinski, No. 90-1055.
Shoemaker v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 248, 253 (1992) (stating that when the appellant requests an increase in a disability rating, the Board is required to explain why the appellant’s symptoms comport with the assigned rating and why they do not comport with the other rating levels).
Michael J. Gaffney for appellant.
Assistant General Counsel were on the brief, for appellee.
Before KRAMER, FARLEY, and STEINBERG, Associate Judges.
STEINBERG, Associate Judge: The appellant, veteran Joseph D.
readjudication in accordance with this opinion.
October 20, 1987, he submitted to the VA a claim for an increased rating.
more emotional disturbance than when he was tested in 1984.” R. at 113.
home.” R. at 38 (emphasis in original).
overwhelming as corroborated by the psychological testing.
forms, noting attributes similar to and consistent with those noted by Dr.
nflexible and maladaptive personality traits”. R. at 121.
any stress or situation that calls for control very long.
from working for at least twelve continuous months. Ibid.
personality disorder not otherwise specified.” R. at 133.
increased rating. R. at 139, 146. In a June 6, 1989, letter to VA, Ms.
an undated letter, apparently submitted at an April 1990 BVA hearing, Ms.
crying out of frustration or utilizing hostility to hide hurt.
his head through a shower door. R. at 157-58.
R. at 204 (emphasis added).
emotionally unstable (R. at 183-84).
introduced into his environment, he could not adapt. R. at 190.
followed. 38 U.S.C. ùù 7252(a), 7266 (formerly ùù 4052, 4066).
Under 38 U.S.C. ù 7104(d)(1) (formerly ù 4004) and Gilbert v.
determination regarding veteran’s testimony); Ohland v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.
activities. 38 C.F.R. ù 4.132, DC 9411.
record here are the medical evaluations prepared for the SSA in which Dr.
in the “complete inability to function independently outside” his home. R.
any length of time with daily life, and was, therefore, “100% disab[led]”.
increase the veteran’s disability rating beyond 50%.
Social Security benefits by the veteran at his hearing. In Collier v.
reviews eligibility for disability benefits).
reasons or bases depends on nature of claim).
major depression in a person with mixed personality disorder”. R. at 115.
personality disorder”. R. at 133.
relationship between these disorders and the veteran’s military service.
consistent picture so rating reflects elements of disability present); 4.
conditions of daily life, including employment); see also 38 C.F.R. ù 19.
for proper appellate decision, BVA shall remand case to RO).
applies to the Board’s resolution of the benefit-of-the-doubt question.
See O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 365, 367 (1991); Hatlestad I, 1 Vet.
entitled to a rating higher than 50%.
38 C.F.R. ù 4.16(b) (1991). See Proscelle, 2 Vet.App. at __, slip op.
at 7; Mingo v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 51, 53-54 (1992).
veteran could not work, let alone function ably outside the home.
provided the reasons or bases for such rejection.
the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation”).
this claim — all in accordance with this opinion. See Fletcher v.
the Clerk whether he desires to seek further review by the Court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.