Link to original post
Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
DANIEL D. PAYNE, APPELLANT,
ROBERT L. WILKIE,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before PIETSCH, Judge.
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
PIETSCH, Judge: The appellant, Daniel D. Payne, appeals a December 6, 2018, Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision in which the Board denied his claim for entitlement to a total
disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). Record (R.) at 4-11. This appeal
is timely and the Court has jurisdiction over the matter on appeal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a)
and 7266(a). Single-judge disposition is appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23,
25-26 (1990). For the reasons that follow, the Court will vacate the Board’s December 6, 2018,
decision and remand the matter on appeal for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
The appellant served in the U.S. Army from September 1967 to July 1969. R at 811-12.
He is currently service connected for prostate cancer, which is evaluated as 60% disabling;
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), evaluated as 50% disabling; diabetes mellitus, evaluated as
20% disabling; and residual fracture right navicular, bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, all of which
are evaluated as 10% disabling. R. at 838. The appellant had a combined disability rating of 70%
effective September 1, 2011, and a combined disability rating of 90% effective from March 1,
In September 2010, he filed an application for increased compensation based on
unemployability, and maintained that his service-connected PTSD and diabetes mellitus prevented
him from securing or following any substantially gainful employment.
Read the full thread below
Single Judge Application; TDIU; Ray, 31 Vet.App. at 73 the Court held that the phrase "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" in §4.16 has economic and noneconomic components, the latter of which focuses on the individual veteran's ability to perform the physical and mental acts necessary for such an occupation; Ray provides that to adequately address the noneconomic component of TDIU, the Board must discuss each limitation the record raises; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 361, 363 (1993) (clarifying that, for TDIU purposes, "[t]he question is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment");
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-1095DANIEL D. PAYNE, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before PIETSCH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.PIETSCH, Judge: The appellant, Daniel D. Payne, appeals a December 6, 2018, Board ofVeterans' Appeals (Board) decision...