38 C.F.R. § 3.343

Continuance of total disability ratings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. Total disability ratings, when warranted by the severity of the condition and not granted purely because of hospital, surgical, or home treatment, or individual unemployability will not be reduced, in the absence of clear error, without examination showing material improvement in physical or mental condition. Examination reports showing material improvement must be evaluated in conjunction with all the facts of record, and consideration must be given particularly to whether the veteran attained improvement under the ordinary conditions of life, i.e., while working or actively seeking work or whether the symptoms have been brought under control by prolonged rest, or generally, by following a regimen which precludes work, and, if the latter, reduction from total disability ratings will not be considered pending reexamination after a period of employment (3 to 6 months).

(b) Tuberculosis; compensation. In service-connected cases, evaluations for active or inactive tuberculosis will be governed by the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (part 4 of this chapter). Where in the opinion of the rating board the veteran at the expiration of the period during which a total rating is provided will not be able to maintain inactivity of the disease process under the ordinary conditions of life, the case will be submitted under § 3.321.

(c) Individual unemployability. (1) In reducing a rating of 100 percent service-connected disability based on individual unemployability, the provisions of § 3.105(e) are for application but caution must be exercised in such a determination that actual employability is established by clear and convincing evidence. When in such a case the veteran is undergoing vocational rehabilitation, education or training, the rating will not be reduced by reason thereof unless there is received evidence of marked improvement or recovery in physical or mental conditions or of employment progress, income earned, and prospects of economic rehabilitation, which demonstrates affirmatively the veteran's capacity to pursue the vocation or occupation for which the training is intended to qualify him or her, or unless the physical or mental demands of the course are obviously incompatible with total disability. Neither participation in, nor the receipt of remuneration as a result of participation in, a therapeutic or rehabilitation activity under 38 U.S.C. 1718 shall be considered evidence of employability.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1718(f))

(2) If a veteran with a total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability begins to engage in a substantially gainful occuption during the period beginning after January 1, 1985, the veteran's rating may not be reduced solely on the basis of having secured and followed such substantially gainful occupation unless the veteran maintains the occupation for a period of 12 consecutive months. For purposes of this subparagraph, temporary interruptions in employment which are of short duration shall not be considered breaks in otherwise continuous employment.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1163(a)) Cross Reference:

Protection, total disability. See § 3.951(b).

[33 FR 16273, Nov. 6, 1968, as amended at 39 FR 14944, Apr. 29, 1974; 50 FR 52775, Dec. 26, 1985; 53 FR 23236, June 21, 1988; 55 FR 17271, Apr. 24, 1990; 57 FR 10426, Mar. 26, 1992; 58 FR 32445, June 10, 1993; 58 FR 46865, Sept. 3, 1993]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342 (Vet. App. 2000).
Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “As to the veteran’s assertions that if he were not disabled by PTSD he would “be able to [earn] .”
Reizenstein v. Shinseki, 583 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “Randall Reizenstein appeals the July 16, 2008 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") holding that 38 C.F.R. § 3.343 (a) does not apply to assignments of retrospective staged ratings that include a temporary total disability rating.”
Dofflemyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 277 (Vet. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “Appellant argues that the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) ratings decision of February 17, 1989, reducing his disability rating from 100% to 10%, and the BVA decision affirming the reduction, are void ab initio, as both the VARO and the BVA failed to apply…”
Pirkl v. Wilkie, 906 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “170 (1949); 38 C.F.R. § 3.343 . Immediately after noting that the CUE finding "effected a change in the legal context applicable to those later decisions," we explained that "the Board failed to consider the effect of the applicability of 38 C.”
Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308 (Vet. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “With respect to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. 3.343 and 3.344, we point out that the veteran has not received psychiatric treatment and has not been hospitalized for schizophrenia for years.”
Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (Vet. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Based upon one medical examination and apparently without applying VA regulations, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.343 and 3.344, the VARO reduced appellant’s 100% disability rating, which had been in existence since 1971, to 70%.”
Andrew M. Collaro, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo G. West, Jr., Acting Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 136 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “” 38 C.F.R. § 3.343 (c)(1) (1980). In 1980, the central office of the agency distributed VA Circular 21-80-7 (Sept.”
Ternus v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 370 (Vet. App. 1994). · cites it 11× “105 (e) (1985), but not to 38 C.F.R. § 3.343 (1985), the RO proposed reducing appellant’s 100% rating for schizophrenia to 70% effective January 1, 1986.”
John R. Ramsey Et Al. v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 16 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “10 together with 38 C.F.R. § 3.343 in order to avoid reaching an absurd result); Trilles v.”
Tucker v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 201 (Vet. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “Appellant filed a motion with the Court for summary reversal, alleging that his total disability rating was reduced without consideration of 38 C.F.R. § 3.343 (1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.”
Collier v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 247 (Vet. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “38 C.F.R. § 3.343 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (1991).”
Terry A. Ledford, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 136 F.3d 776 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “12 (repealed 1997), and (2) the operation of the Circular violated his due process rights under the United States Constitution because it was inconsistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.343 (c) (1997), which generally prescribes that a 100% individual unemployability rating can be reduced…”
— 38 C.F.R. § 3.343(a) — 1 case
180814-265 (Board of Vet. App. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.