PTKY and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

The Veteran's Appeals Division reviewed a decision of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission concerning PTKY, the veteran, and his accepted condition of malignant neoplasm of the prostate. The Commission had determined the veteran suffered a combined whole person impairment (WPI) of 56% from this condition. The veteran sought additional compensation, arguing for a further assessment under Table 13.2 of the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment, Edition 2.1.

The primary legal issue before the Division was whether the veteran was entitled to further compensation by having his WPI assessed under Table 13.2, and if so, whether such an assessment would result in additional compensation. The veteran contended that Table 13.2, which assesses conditions based on symptomology and activities of daily living, should be applied to his malignant neoplasm of the prostate, citing the Permanent Impairment Handbook which states all malignant cancer conditions are to be assessed under this table. He argued this would not constitute a double assessment, as he experienced various symptoms and functional limitations.

Deputy President McDermott affirmed the Commission's decision, finding no cogent evidence warranted an impairment rating under Table 13.2. The Commission had previously assessed the veteran's impairment using Tables 10.2 (urine incontinence) and 11.1 (sexual function), resulting in a combined WPI of 56%. While Dr. Wood identified a 35% WPI under Table 13.2, the Commission determined that the activities of daily living for which the veteran required assistance (continence, toileting, personal hygiene, and sexual function) had already been considered under Tables 10.2 and 11.1. The Division applied the principle that the possibility of double assessment for a single loss of function must be guarded against, as stated in the Guide's Principles of Assessment. Therefore, the same impairments could not be considered again under Table 13.2 to avoid double compensation. The Division concluded that the criteria for a rating under Table 13.2, specifically the presence of signs and symptoms of the accepted condition after the malignancy had been removed, were not met.