Webster v. Derwinski — Board must provide reasons or bases when rating PTSD and separating service-connected from nonservice-connected impairment

Richard H. Webster sought an increased rating for service-connected PTSD after previously receiving a 30 percent evaluation. The record contained substantial evidence of serious psychiatric impairment, including private and VA psychiatric evaluations, sworn testimony from the veteran and a coworker, and a Social Security disability decision finding him unable to engage in gainful activity because of mental impairment. The Board nevertheless denied a rating higher than 30 percent in a brief conclusion that the disability caused only definite social and industrial inadaptability.

The Court held that the Board failed to comply with the statutory reasons-or-bases requirement because it did not explain why it rejected or discounted the favorable evidence suggesting greater industrial impairment. The Court also noted that the Board was silent on whether part of the veteran’s psychiatric impairment should be attributed to a nonservice-connected bipolar disorder. If the Board chooses to make such a separation on remand, the Court instructed that it must do so based on medical evidence. The Court further reminded the Board to meaningfully address the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine rather than reciting it mechanically. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The Board must provide adequate reasons or bases for rating determinations and may not separate service-connected from nonservice-connected psychiatric impairment without medical evidence supporting that distinction.

A bare conclusory denial of a higher psychiatric rating is vulnerable on appeal, especially where the record contains strong favorable evidence and the Board does not explain symptom attribution or evidentiary weighting.

Webster is an early and important reasons-or-bases case in the psychiatric rating context. It shows that the Board must connect the facts to the rating criteria, address highly favorable evidence, and justify any attempt to exclude symptoms from the service-connected disability picture.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A veteran with service-connected PTSD submits multiple treating opinions and lay testimony showing severe occupational impairment, but the Board denies an increase in one paragraph without explaining why the evidence does not support a higher evaluation or whether some symptoms are being attributed to a nonservice-connected disorder.

Use Webster to challenge perfunctory denials of increased psychiatric ratings, especially when the Board fails to discuss favorable medical opinions, lay testimony, or symptom separation between service-connected and nonservice-connected conditions.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Sammarco v. Derwinski, Murphy v. Derwinski, Ohland v. Derwinski