Snow v. Derwinski — Board must consider unemployability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c) when raised

The veteran appealed a Board decision that increased his PTSD rating to 70 percent but denied a higher evaluation. The record before the Board repeatedly raised unemployability: the veteran filed for increased compensation based on unemployability, testified that he could not return to work, and medical evidence described him as unemployable or totally disabled. Although 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c) had become effective before the Board’s decision and provided for a 100 percent schedular evaluation when a veteran’s only compensable service-connected disability was a 70 percent mental disorder that precluded substantially gainful employment, the Board did not discuss that regulation at all. The Court held that § 4.16(c) applied and that the Board erred by failing to consider the raised unemployability theory. The case was remanded for the Board to address entitlement under § 4.16(c), making the decision an important early authority on the Board’s obligation to consider total-rating theories that are reasonably raised by the record.

If unemployability is reasonably raised and the veteran’s only compensable service-connected disability is a 70 percent mental disorder, the Board must consider 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c) and determine whether the disability warrants a 100 percent schedular evaluation under that regulation.

A PTSD rating appeal can implicate a total-rating theory even when the Board frames the issue as only an increased schedular evaluation. Advocates should ensure the Board addresses § 4.16(c) or its modern equivalent whenever the record shows a 70 percent mental disorder and evidence of inability to secure or follow substantially gainful employment.

Snow is a practical reminder that the Board must analyze all reasonably raised theories supported by the record, not just the schedular percentage issue expressly labeled in the decision. It is especially useful where psychiatric disability and unemployability overlap, because failing to discuss the applicable total-rating regulation can require remand.

Failure to consider TDIU

A veteran with a single service-connected PTSD rating of 70 percent submits statements from doctors and testimony showing he cannot work, but the Board denies an increased rating without discussing whether the disability precludes substantially gainful employment under the applicable total-rating regulation.

Use Snow to argue remand when the Board ignores a reasonably raised unemployability theory in a mental-disorder rating appeal. The case is strongest when the record contains direct evidence of inability to work and the Board confines itself to schedular criteria without analyzing the governing total-rating regulation.

Karnas v. Derwinski, Morton v. Ruiz