CAVC Case 24-4659: PTSD

On May 10,2024,the Board denied disability ratings for MDD with anxious distress in excess of 10%for the period from August 10,2015,to November 14,2018; in excess of 50%for the period from November 15,2018,to November 20,2019;in excess of 70% for the period from 5 Case:24-4659 Page: 6 of 19 Filed:08/29/2025 November 21,2019,to August 10,2020; and in excess of 30%from August 11,2020.

Further,the appellant avers,because the Board erred by finding that no rating reduction occurred,the Board mischaracterized the issue on appeal as entitlement to a rating in excess of 30%and failed entirely to apply the law governing the propriety of a rating reduction.

In this regard,he asserts that the Board relied on two instances when he denied depression to conclude that his symptoms were managed by medication,and the Board failed to account for evidence demonstrating that he 'struggle[d]with depression,anhedonia, and low energy'that was only partially resolved by treatment with Zoloft.

Additionally,he contends that the Board failed to analyze whether the frequency,severity,and duration of suicidal ideation,relationship difficulties,and memory loss aligned with the higher criteria.

He asserts that the Board overlooked that he experienced suicidal ideation when he ran out of medication;did not address whether isolating himself and being withdrawn affected his ability to establish and maintain relationships,or whether his relationships were effective;and failed to address evidence that he was forgetful 'of everything'at times,which spoke directly to whether he had mild memory loss.

Moreover,he avers that the Board failed to independently analyze whether his symptoms resulted in an occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks;instead,he contends,the Board uncritically relied on the fact that 'none of the[]VA examiners determined that [his]disability manifested with impairment sufficient to meet the criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10[%].

In reply,the appellant asserts that the Secretary does not dispute that he experienced symptoms contemplated by the 30% and 50%rating criteria,or that the Board failed to discuss evidence showing that his symptoms were not fully controlled by medication.

c attacks,mild hopelessness, racing or fixated thoughts,and irritability with verbal aggression,the Board failed to conduct the required analysis to determine whether those symptoms aligned with the 70%rating criteria or were otherwise of similar severity,frequency,and duration.