Veterans Court Orders Limited Remand on Whether the Record Reasonably Raised TDIU
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims retained jurisdiction and ordered a limited remand in Williams v. Collins, directing the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to decide in the first instance whether the record reasonably raised TDIU, a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. Chief Judge Allen wrote for the three-judge panel in the panel’s order of July 27, 2026. Judge Toth filed a concurring opinion, and Judge Jaquith filed a separate concurrence.
The panel framed the case as a test of how the Federal Circuit’s recent decisions restricting the Veterans Court’s authority to make factual determinations interact with the court’s longstanding practice of assessing whether the record reasonably raises an issue the Board did not decide. The court held that nothing in that Federal Circuit caselaw undermines its authority to make the reasonably raised assessment, but that the factfinding restrictions affect how the court makes the determination.
The appeal contests a February 5, 2024, Board decision. The Board granted the appellant, John Omar Williams, a 70% rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood, dismissed an appeal of the denial of an initial rating greater than 10% for tinnitus, and remanded a claim for a rating greater than 20% for prostate cancer prior to June 24, 2020. None of those determinations were before the court. The issue on appeal was whether the Board erred by not addressing if the record reasonably raised entitlement to TDIU.
What the Panel Held
The court exercised its discretion to send the matter back to the Board for the limited purpose of addressing whether TDIU was reasonably raised by the record, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal. Under that posture, the Board will answer the specific question posed on remand, and the Veterans Court will then resolve the TDIU issue without engaging in first-instance factfinding that the Federal Circuit’s recent caselaw would foreclose.
The panel reasoned that determining whether an issue is reasonably raised can require weighing evidence in the record, an inquiry that overlaps with factfinding. Rather than resolve that overlap by declining to consider the question, the court chose a limited-remand mechanism that preserves its jurisdiction while directing the initial evidentiary assessment to the Board.
The Record Before the Court
Williams served in the Army and the National Guard from June 1969 to June 1973, July 1989 to August 1995, and April 2004 to April 2005. A May 2010 regional office decision that increased his adjustment disorder rating to 50% also denied entitlement to TDIU. In April 2018, his primary care physician noted he was not working. An August 2018 filing sought an increased rating for adjustment disorder.
An October 2018 VA psychiatric examiner recorded that Williams was working three hours per day as a lunchroom monitor and identified occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and passive suicidal ideation. A December 2018 examiner noted he had worked as a substitute teacher for two years before resigning in May 2018, with the reason unspecified. Williams told the December 2018 examiner that despite a college degree he could not obtain steady work in his field.
Why TDIU Turns on the Reasonably Raised Doctrine
TDIU allows compensation at the 100% rate for a veteran who cannot maintain substantially gainful employment because of a service-connected disability, even when the schedular rating is lower. The individualized employability assessment is set out at 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. VA describes the schedular thresholds as at least one service-connected disability rated 60% or more, or two or more service-connected disabilities with a combined rating of 70% and at least one rated 40% or more, with extraschedular consideration available in certain cases.
Under Veterans Court doctrine, TDIU is not a freestanding claim that must be pleaded separately. When the record before the Board reasonably raises the question of unemployability in connection with an increased-rating claim, the Board must address it. The panel’s order does not decide whether the record here cleared that threshold; it directs the Board to decide that first.
What the Board Must Answer in 30 Days
The order gives the Board 30 days to issue a supplemental statement of reasons or bases addressing whether the record at the time of the February 5, 2024, decision reasonably raised entitlement to TDIU. The Secretary must file that statement with the court within three days of its issuance, and each party then has 10 days to file a supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages on its effect. The Board may take no further action beyond that response while the court retains jurisdiction, and the court said it will not entertain any motion to extend those deadlines absent compelling circumstances. Oral argument was heard March 26, 2026, at Albany Law School as part of the court’s outreach program.
