The veteran appealed a Board decision denying an increased rating for service-connected coronary artery disease and a total rating based on individual unemployability. He later withdrew the TDIU issue, leaving only the increased-rating question. The record contained medical evidence from both a VA physician and a private cardiologist stating that his coronary artery disease rendered him unemployable or precluded meaningful employment. The Board nevertheless denied a 100% rating under Diagnostic Code 7005, finding that the chronic residuals required for that rating were not shown.

The Court held that the Board’s factual finding was clearly erroneous because the evidence satisfied the 100% schedular criterion in DC 7005 requiring that more than sedentary employment be precluded. The Court emphasized that there was no plausible basis in the record for the Board’s contrary conclusion. It reversed the Board and remanded for assignment of a 100% rating. Although the Secretary conceded reasons-or-bases deficiencies, the Court resolved the appeal on the merits and did not rest its holding on those procedural concessions.

Under former 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7005, a 100% rating is warranted when chronic residuals of coronary artery disease preclude more than sedentary employment, and a Board finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous when unsupported by the record.

Medical opinions stating that heart disease prevents more than sedentary work can compel a 100% schedular cardiac rating. Advocates should focus on matching the evidence to the exact diagnostic code criterion, not only on unemployability language.

It is a strong rating precedent for coronary artery disease claims because it ties employment limitations directly to the schedular criteria. It also illustrates that the Court can reverse, rather than merely remand, when the record leaves no plausible basis for the Board’s denial.

A veteran with service-connected coronary artery disease submits a cardiologist’s opinion that he cannot perform even sedentary work due to angina and reduced cardiac function, but the Board still denies a 100% rating under the applicable diagnostic code.

Use this case to argue that competent medical evidence establishing inability to perform more than sedentary employment satisfies the schedular 100% standard under DC 7005. It is especially useful when the Board has discounted the occupational impact of heart disease without contrary evidence.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Lovelace v. Derwinski, Karnas v. Derwinski