## Facts

- Willie S. Johnson, a Marine Corps veteran, sought VA disability compensation for service-connected headaches.
- VA evaluated the condition under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 8100 (migraines), which provides:
  - 30% for “characteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average once a month over last several months,” and
  - 50% for “very frequent completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability.”
- A VA medical examiner reported that, about three times per month, Johnson had prostrating headache attacks that left him unable to perform any tasks.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals assigned a 30% rating for “mixed headaches.”
- In explaining the rating, the Board stated that Johnson averaged one prostrating headache per month and also remarked that three prostrating headaches per month could be viewed as “frequent” but not “very frequent.”
- Johnson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board’s analysis of the DC 8100 criteria (especially the frequency and severity components) was legally and factually deficient and that the evidence supported a 50% rating.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board misinterpreted and misapplied DC 8100’s 50% criteria—“very frequent completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability”—when it denied a rating above 30% despite evidence of about three prostrating attacks per month with inability to perform tasks.
2. Whether the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its findings on attack frequency (“frequent” versus “very frequent”), the nature of the attacks (“completely prostrating” and “prolonged”), and the element of “severe economic inadaptability.”

## Decision

- The court set aside the Board’s decision denying a rating above 30% for headaches.
- The court remanded the matter for the Board to readjudicate the proper rating under DC 8100.
- The court held that the Board’s analysis was deficient because it did not meaningfully explain its distinction between “frequent” and “very frequent,” did not adequately address whether the attacks were “completely prostrating” and “prolonged,” and did not sufficiently analyze whether the attacks were productive of “severe economic inadaptability.”

## Legal Principles

- DC 8100 uses qualitative terms (“very frequent,” “completely prostrating,” “prolonged,” and “productive of severe economic inadaptability”) that must be applied to the record with a reasoned explanation tying facts to the rating criteria.
- The Board must provide a written statement of reasons or bases for its material findings and conclusions that is sufficient to permit the claimant to understand the basis for the decision and to permit judicial review. Conclusory statements are not enough.
- When the Board accepts or recites evidence describing attack frequency and functional effects (such as inability to perform tasks during attacks), it must explain how that evidence fits within the regulatory terms, including why a given frequency is or is not “very frequent.”
- The 50% criteria in DC 8100 require analysis of multiple components—frequency, degree of prostration, duration, and economic impact—and the Board must address each component raised by the evidence, rather than treating one component as dispositive without explanation.
- “Severe economic inadaptability” does not require a showing of actual unemployability, but it calls for a reasoned discussion of whether the disability’s effects are capable of producing serious work impairment, based on the record.

## Conclusion

Johnson v. Wilkie held that the Board’s denial of a 50% migraine-type rating could not stand where the Board offered an unexplained frequency label (“frequent” but not “very frequent”), did not adequately grapple with evidence that the veteran was unable to perform tasks during prostrating attacks, and failed to provide a reviewable analysis of whether the attacks were completely prostrating, prolonged, and productive of severe economic inadaptability; the Veterans Court therefore set aside the decision and remanded for a new rating determination under a properly explained application of DC 8100.


Johnson v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 245 (2018)