Rouse: Sedentary Work

Rouse v. McDonough, Case Number 19-5699, decided April 13, 2021 involves TDIU and the term “sedentary work”.

This involves a claim for TDIU.  The veteran had a back condition and a VA examiner found the back disability prevent substantial gainful employment in physical occupations, but noted it did not preclude him from “sedentary occupations.”

The veteran argued the Board should accept the definition of sedentary work found in Social Security Administration regulations: “Sedentary employment is 'defined as one which involves sitting,' as much as two-thirds of an 5 eight hour[] day, or a little more than five hours."”

The Court noted that in a prior decision (Withers), it determined that it could not provide a fixed definition of the term sedentary  work, but stated the Board must provide sufficient factual context to show what it meant by the term and how its findings related to the sue of the term in the veteran’s overall disability picture and work history.  Id. at *5.

The Court then turned to the case at hand and stated: “the Board in this case explained how it determined that the veteran was capable of certain types of work in light of his overall disability picture and prior educational and occupational history. Thus, the Board applied sufficient context to allow the Court to understand what it meant.”

The Court then explained:

Moreover, despite Mr. Rouse's assertions to the contrary, the Board considered his other physical limitations such as standing and bending over for prolonged periods of time but, given his full disability picture, it found no evidence that the veteran was precluded from obtaining substantially gainful employment with reasonable workplace accommodations. Although Mr. Rouse disagrees with the Board's determination, the Board satisfied the requirements articulated in Withers and fully explained its reasons for finding that the veteran was capable of work, so that TDIU wasn't warranted. See 30 Vet.App. at 148. The Board's factual determinations reflect a plausible reading of the record and the Court will not overturn it.

Id. at *6.

The Court also considered an argument that a recent decision (Ray) requires the VA to adopt the SSA’s specific definition of sedentary work.  Id. at *7.  The Court determined Ray did not upset Withers or define the term sedentary work.  Id. at *9.  The Court relied on the notion that while it can determine the meaning of terms, it should do so only to the extent necessary to its decision.

Decision by Judge Toth and joined in by Judges Pietsch and Laurer. 

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.