This case involves veteran John Omar Williams, who served in the Army and National Guard from 1969-1973, 1989-1995, and 2004-2005. He appealed a February 5, 2024 Board decision. The Board had granted him a 70% rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood, dismissed a tinnitus rating appeal, and remanded a prostate cancer rating issue - none of which were before the Court. The real issue was narrower: "whether the Board erred by not addressing if the record reasonably raised appellant's entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU)."
The Court had to work through how recent Federal Circuit decisions limiting the Court's own fact-finding power affect its ability to decide whether an issue like TDIU was "reasonably raised" by the record. The Court held that "nothing in the Federal Circuit's recent caselaw concerning factfinding undermines the Court's authority to assess whether the record reasonably raises an issue," but that caselaw does affect how the Court makes that determination.
Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.
Dependent add-ons start at a 30% rating. Child-only and dependent-parent rates: see the full 2026 pay chart.
| Rating | Monthly (2026, incl. 2.8% COLA) |
|---|---|
| 10% | $180.42 |
| 20% | $356.66 |
| 30% | $552.47 |
| 40% | $795.84 |
| 50% | $1,132.90 |
| 60% | $1,435.02 |
| 70% | $1,808.45 |
| 80% | $2,102.15 |
| 90% | $2,362.30 |
| 100% | $3,938.58 |
Does your rating decision hold up under a real audit?
Upload your decision letter and C&P exams — VetAid's analyzer reads the full file, checks every examiner statement word-for-word against your records, and shows which arguments for a higher rating actually hold. Free, and we never take a cut of your back pay.
Analyze my claim free →Because the Court says it is "limited in what factfinding we can do in the first instance," it did not decide for itself whether TDIU was reasonably raised. Instead, it exercised its discretion to remand the case to the Board "for the limited purpose of the Board addressing if TDIU was reasonably raised by the record while retaining jurisdiction." In other words, the Board itself must now make that threshold determination, and the Court will keep the case open and rule on the TDIU question afterward.
The source text does not state an effective date for this holding beyond the order itself, and it does not address retroactivity to other closed cases. It does not say what disabilities Williams has that might support TDIU, nor does it resolve whether he will ultimately receive TDIU - that depends on what the Board finds on remand and the Court's subsequent review.
The practical significance is procedural: if a veteran has a pending claim or appeal where multiple high-rated disabilities exist but the Board's decision never discusses whether the record reasonably raises unemployability, this case supports arguing that the Board had an obligation to consider that question explicitly.
If you have a pending claim or Board appeal where significant disabilities exist but TDIU was never discussed, review your Board decision now to see whether it addressed unemployability, and if not, consider raising this omission with your representative or in a motion, citing this case.
Need a deeper analysis?
Our AI checks your situation against outcome data from 1,300,000+ Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) decisions (2009–2025).
Analyze Your Claim Free