Hillyard v. Derwinski — Clear-error review of PTSD rating decision

The appellant sought an increased PTSD rating from 30 percent to 50 percent, arguing that his symptoms and occupational limitations showed considerable social and industrial impairment. The Board found that although he experienced depression, flashbacks, isolation, and paranoia, he remained employed full-time and did not show the level of impairment required for a 50 percent evaluation. On appeal, the Court treated the Board’s severity determination as a factual finding subject to clear-error review and held that the record provided a plausible basis for the Board’s conclusion. The Court also rejected the attempt to use other Board decisions as precedential authority, explaining that prior Board decisions are nonprecedential and may be considered only to the extent they reasonably relate to the case. The decision matters because it confirms the deferential review applied to rating findings and underscores the limited value of relying on unrelated Board decisions in appellate advocacy.

A Board disability-rating finding is a factual determination reviewed for clear error, and the Court will affirm when the Board’s conclusion has a plausible basis in the record and adequate reasons and bases.

To challenge a rating denial, the appellant must show more than a competing interpretation of the evidence; there must be no plausible factual basis for the Board’s decision. Unrelated Board decisions are not binding precedent.

The case is useful for understanding how difficult it is to overturn a Board rating determination on appeal. It also reinforces that advocates should build the record before the Board and not expect prior, unrelated Board decisions to control the outcome.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A veteran argues that PTSD symptoms require a higher rating, but the Board cites employment history and examination findings showing only definite impairment. On appeal, the Court affirms because the Board’s factual assessment is plausibly supported by the record.

Use this case to frame rating appeals around record development and clear legal error, not mere disagreement with how the Board weighed evidence. It also supports briefing that other Board decisions are persuasive at most, not binding.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Lovelace v. Derwinski