Washington v. Derwinski — Board must apply rating criteria consistently and give adequate reasons or bases for rating and unemployability findings

The veteran served in the Navy and was service connected for a psychophysiological musculoskeletal disorder manifested by headaches, later increased to 30 percent, along with a scar. He sought a higher rating and individual unemployability, relying in part on VA treatment records, psychiatric examination findings describing minimal social adjustment and industrial adjustment from moderate to nil, and a Social Security Administration decision finding him unemployable. The Board granted 30 percent but denied unemployability, reasoning that his disabilities did not preclude a relatively low-stress job.

The Court held that the Board failed to apply the psychiatric rating criteria properly. The Board used terminology associated with higher evaluations, such as difficulty obtaining or retaining employment and isolation, while assigning only a 30 percent rating for definite impairment. The Court also held that the Board did not adequately explain how it reconciled the VA psychiatrist’s findings with the rating schedule and contradicted itself about whether back pain was part of the service-connected psychophysiological disorder. Because the record did not contain adequate medical support for the Board’s characterization of the disability, the Board effectively made an unsupported medical judgment.

On unemployability, the Court found the Board’s statement that the veteran could do low-stress work was unsupported and conflicted with the treating physician’s statement that any stress would trigger symptoms. The Court also faulted the Board for giving only a summary dismissal of the SSA disability determination without explaining what weight it assigned to that evidence. The decision was vacated and remanded for proper application of the rating schedule and a reasoned explanation supported by the record.

The Board must rate disabilities using the correct regulatory criteria, may not substitute unsupported medical judgment for medical evidence, and must provide adequate reasons or bases when denying a higher rating or unemployability benefits.

If the Board’s rationale mixes rating levels, ignores or minimizes favorable medical evidence, or gives a conclusory employability finding, Washington provides strong remand authority.

Washington is an early and important reasons-or-bases case in veterans law. It reinforces that the Board must connect medical findings to the rating criteria, explain contradictions in the record, and support employability determinations with analysis rather than conclusory statements.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A veteran is rated for a mental disorder or psychosomatic condition, and the Board cites symptoms suggestive of a higher schedular level but still assigns a lower evaluation without explaining why those symptoms do not warrant more. The Board also denies TDIU with only a brief statement that the veteran could do sedentary or low-stress work despite contrary medical evidence.

Use this case to challenge Board decisions that misapply psychiatric or analogous rating criteria, rely on inconsistent terminology, or deny TDIU without addressing favorable medical and SSA evidence. It is especially useful when the Board’s discussion contains internal contradictions or unsupported inferences about work capacity.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Colvin v. Derwinski, Hatlestad v. Derwinski, Hyder v. Derwinski, Ferraro v. Derwinski, Webster v. Derwinski, Fletcher v. Derwinski