A veteran may be considered as unemployable upon termination of employment which was provided on account of disability, or in which special consideration was given on account of the same, when it is satisfactorily shown that he or she is unable to secure further employment. With amputations, sequelae of fractures and other residuals of traumatism shown to be of static character, a showing of continuous unemployability from date of incurrence, or the date the condition reached the stabilized level, is a general requirement in order to establish the fact that present unemployability is the result of the disability. However, consideration is to be given to the circumstances of employment in individual claims, and, if the employment was only occasional, intermittent, tryout or unsuccessful, or eventually terminated on account of the disability, present unemployability may be attributed to the static disability. Where unemployability for pension previously has been established on the basis of combined service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities and the service-connected disability or disabilities have increased in severity, § 4.16 is for consideration.
[40 FR 42536, Sept. 15, 1975, as amended at 43 FR 45349, Oct. 2, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1991–2017 · leading case:
Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“” “Unemployability” under 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 requires an individual to satisfactorily show preclusion from all further employment.”
Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (Vet. App. 1991).
“] The Court also notes the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 (1990) relating to a veteran for whom a special job or special consideration in a job was provided because of the veteran’s disability.”
Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 326 (Vet. App. 1991).
“The Court, in finding these regulations applicable, also finds that 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.18 and 4.19 (1990) are applicable in this scheme but, as this Court determined in Hatlestad, 1 Vet.”
Pratt v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 269 (Vet. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 , A veteran may be considered as unemployable upon termination of employment which was provided on account of disability, or in which special consideration was given on account of the same, when it is satisfactorily shown that he or she is unable to…”
Moyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 289 (Vet. App. 1992).
“38 C.F.R. § 4.18 (1991). Appellant has shown that he attempted sales jobs and political campaign work because of the limitations placed on his capabilities with the loss of use of his right arm and hand.”
07-36 329 (Board of Vet. App. 2017).
“In reaching that conclusion, the Board has considered the definition of unemployability outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 (2016), but finds no evidence to suggest that the Veteran's job duties would fall under the category of a "special consideration" or otherwise fit the definition…”
Wade v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 70 (Vet. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 , A veteran may be considered as unemployable upon termination of employment which was provided on account of disability, or in which special consideration was given on account of the same, when it is satisfactorily shown that he or she is…”
14-17 141 (Board of Vet. App. 2015).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 . Marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a Veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.”
11-15 967 (Board of Vet. App. 2015).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 . Marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a Veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.”
06-03 167 (Board of Vet. App. 2011).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 4.18 . As the Court stated in Friscia v.”
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.