VA and its attorneys agreed the Board erred when it denied our client a higher rating for his service-connected mental health condition. This resulted in a joint motion which avoided the lengthy briefing process and sent the issue back to the Board as quickly as possible.
Under the law, specifically the precedent set in Bankhead v. Shulkin, the VA must conduct a holistic analysis of a veteran’s mental health condition. This means assessing the severity, frequency, and duration of all symptoms and determining how they impact the veteran’s social and occupational functioning. The symptoms listed in the VA’s rating criteria are guides, not an exhaustive checklist.
In our client’s case, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals divided his symptoms into separate categories—such as mood, work, and relationships—and concluded there were deficiencies in only one area. This fragmented approach overlooked the combined effect of his symptoms on his daily life. Notably, the Board incorrectly stated there was “no deficiency in the area of mood,” despite medical records indicating depression and persistent negative emotions.
Furthermore, the Board failed to explain why his symptoms warranted only a 50% disability rating instead of a higher one that more accurately reflects his condition. VA and its attorneys agreed that the Board did not provide adequate reasons for its conclusions and did not apply the required holistic evaluation.
As a result, the case has been remanded, meaning the Board must re-examine our client’s claim using the correct legal standards. This outcome not only impacts our client but also reinforces the importance of comprehensive evaluations for all veterans with mental health disabilities.
If you or a loved one are facing challenges with a VA disability claim, especially involving mental health issues, our experienced team is here to help. We are committed to ensuring that veterans receive the benefits they have rightfully earned.
