The veteran sought a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, arguing that his service-connected orthopedic and other disabilities prevented substantially gainful employment. After earlier remands and a prior Court opinion, the Court reconsidered the case and vacated the Board’s June 1991 denial, remanding for readjudication.

The Court addressed several issues. First, it held that the Board did not clearly err in treating a September 1988 VA treatment note as contemporaneous evidence and did not commit prejudicial reasons-or-bases error on that point. Second, it clarified that the Board’s discussion of nonservice-connected disabilities was not independently fatal because the controlling inquiry is whether service-connected disabilities alone are sufficient to cause unemployability. The Court concluded that the Board had applied the proper standard on that central point, so a strict remand solely for further discussion of nonservice-connected conditions would be pointless.

The Court did, however, find remand required on two other grounds. The Board had relied on medical treatise material without prior notice to the claimant or an opportunity to respond, contrary to Thurber. The Court also found it unclear how the Board weighed two VA orthopedic examinations describing pain and functional limitation, and instructed the Board to clarify the treatment of that favorable evidence on remand. The decision is a key TDIU and Board procedure case because it confirms the service-connected-only rule for unemployability and reinforces notice obligations when the Board uses treatise evidence.

A TDIU award must be based on whether service-connected disabilities alone render the veteran unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment, regardless of nonservice-connected disorders; separately, when the Board relies on medical treatise evidence not previously noticed to the claimant, due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Advocates should frame TDIU as a service-connected-only inquiry and challenge Board decisions that rely on extra-record treatise evidence without notice. The case also supports demanding explicit Board treatment of favorable medical evidence and functional-pain findings.

Hatlestad is a foundational TDIU case because it explains the correct unemployability standard and limits improper reliance on nonservice-connected conditions. It is also an early due-process case on the Board’s use of medical treatises, making it useful both for substantive TDIU arguments and procedural fairness challenges.

Using nonservice-connected disabilities as a substitute basis for denying TDIU without separately analyzing whether service-connected disabilities alone cause unemployability.

A veteran with service-connected orthopedic disabilities and unrelated heart disease is denied TDIU because VA attributes unemployment to the heart disease. Under Hatlestad, the Board must still decide whether the service-connected disabilities alone prevent substantially gainful employment.

Cite Hatlestad to force the Board to analyze TDIU under the service-connected-only standard, to object to reliance on medical treatises without notice, and to require clear discussion of favorable pain and functional-limitation evidence.

Pratt v. Derwinski, Fluharty v. Derwinski, Thurber v. Derwinski, Gilbert v. Derwinski