(a) When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination.
(b) When evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment.
(c) Neurocognitive disorders shall be evaluated under the general rating formula for mental disorders; neurologic deficits or other impairments stemming from the same etiology (e.g., a head injury) shall be evaluated separately and combined with the evaluation for neurocognitive disorders (see § 4.25).
(d) When a single disability has been diagnosed both as a physical condition and as a mental disorder, the rating agency shall evaluate it using a diagnostic code which represents the dominant (more disabling) aspect of the condition (see § 4.14).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
[61 FR 52700, Oct. 8, 1996, as amended at 79 FR 45099, Aug. 4, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
159
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (Vet. App. 2002).
Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (Vet. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (2001). After consideration of these factors, and based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment, VA must assign a disability rating that most closely reflects the level of social and occupational impairment a veteran…”
Genaro Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “(citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a)). Accordingly, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of a 70 percent disability rating.”
Reizenstein v. Shinseki, 583 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “, 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (evaluation of disability from mental disorders).”
Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (Vet. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “125 (Nov 96 amnds) (“[i]f the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis” (emphasis added)); 38 C.F.R. § 4.126…”
Janssen v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 370 (Vet. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “es argued for the application of the old version of the PTSD regulations that had *377 changed, whereas here we need not be concerned with Kamas because the appellant argues that the statutory provisions added or amended by the VCAA (new law) and the relevant preexisting law…”
Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“” 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a). Although Moore is only entitled to disability compensation for the period after September 16, 1992, the date he filed his original claim for benefits, the clear mandate of VA regulations is that a veteran’s disability must be evaluated in light of its…”
Young v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (1984). A department circular, issued in 1982, confirms that a medical diagnosis of PTSD was required to establish service connection when Young filed his claim.”
Phillip G. Cline v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 18 (Vet. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a) (2012) ("When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission.”
Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
“” 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a) (1996). Revisions effective in 1996 removed that language because it was already included in § 4.”
Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“According to 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 , the VA is required to consider a number of pertinent factors, such as the frequency, severity, and duration of the veteran’s psychiatric symptoms.”
Burger v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 340 (Vet. App. 1993).
“The reports from group therapy sessions are not in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 and DSM-III-R (Diagnostic and Statistical RePORT Of Mental DISORDERS) which require supportive findings to substantiate a PTSD diagnosis.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(d) — 1 case
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.