Link to original post
Excerpt from the decision below:
” Generously construing the appellant’s brief, we are asked to decide whether the Board erred in denying an increased rating for right ear hearing loss and failing to address lay evidence that the veteran’s hearing loss causes depression, anxiety, and trouble understanding words. See De Perez v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 85, 86 (1992)(the Court generously construes the arguments of pro se appellants).
“However, the Board failed to investigate whether his other symptoms, including depression, anxiety, and trouble sleeping, were ratable under alternative means, a threshold analysis required under VA’s duty to maximize benefits. See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008); see also Tatum v. Shinseki, 23Vet.App. 152, 157 (2009). As we held in Morgan v. Wilkie, “VA has powerful, ready-made scheduler rating tools with which it can better adjudicate claims that include symptoms and effects not contemplated by applicable diagnostic code.” 31 Vet.App. 162, 167 (2019).”
Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
GUADALUPE M.DELEON, APPELLANT, V.ROBERT L.WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before FALVEY, Judge.
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.
FALVEY, Judge: Self-represented Army veteran Guadalupe M. Deleon appeals a September 5, 2018, Board of Veterans’Appeals decision that denied an initial compensable rating for right ear hearing loss. This appeal is timely, the Court has jurisdiction to review the Board decision, and single-judge disposition is appropriate. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a), 7266(a); Frankel v. Derwinski,
Read the full thread below
Single Judge Application; hearing loss; De Perez v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 85, 86 (1992); Court generously construes the arguments of pro se appellants; VA's duty to maximize benefits, explore whether ratable under alternative means; Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 280, 294 (2008);
Excerpt from decision below: " Generously construing the appellant's brief, we are asked to decide whether the Board erred in denying an increased rating for right ear hearing loss and failing to address lay evidence that the veteran's hearing loss causes depression, anxiety, and trouble understanding words.See De Perez v.