Last reviewed: September 2026. This article summarizes court decisions for general education. It is not legal advice. Case law can change, and an accredited representative should confirm how these decisions apply to a specific appeal.
A TDIU vocational report is written for an adjudicator who applies a body of case law, whether or not the report mentions it. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and the Federal Circuit have defined what substantially gainful employment means, when work counts as marginal or protected, how "sedentary" must be analyzed, and what makes an opinion worth weight.
A report that tracks these decisions gives the Board what it needs to write a grant that holds up. A report that ignores them invites the Board to discount it. This guide covers the decisions we address most often and what a report should do for each.
Ray v. Wilkie (2019): Defining "Substantially Gainful"
Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58 (2019), gave the first working definition of the phrase "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" in 38 CFR § 4.16. The court described two parts. The economic part asks whether the work produces earned annual income above the poverty threshold for one person. The non-economic part looks at the veteran's history, education, skill, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability to do the work, with attention to limits on things like sitting, standing, walking, and lifting; and whether the veteran has the mental ability to do the work, with attention to memory, concentration, the ability to adapt to change, handling work stress, getting along with coworkers, and showing reliability and productivity.
What a report should do: address each non-economic factor explicitly, using the veteran's documented limitations, and explain how the physical and mental limits combine. Mental and cognitive factors are often where cases are won, especially with PTSD, TBI, or medication side effects. Reliability, meaning attendance, pace, and staying on task, deserves its own discussion because it is often what ends employment in practice.
Cantrell v. Shulkin (2017): Protected Environments
Under 38 CFR § 4.16(a), work in a protected environment, such as a family business or sheltered workshop, may be considered marginal even when earnings exceed the poverty threshold. In Cantrell v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 382 (2017), the court held that the regulation does not define "protected environment," that VA's interpretation was not entitled to deference, and that the Board must explain its reasoning. The court indicated that the veteran's actual job duties and any accommodations are relevant.
What a report should do: when a veteran is working or recently worked, describe the actual duties, accommodations, supervision, flexibility, and tolerance of absences, and compare them with what a competitive employer would require.
LaBruzza v. McDonough (2024): The Protected-Environment Test
LaBruzza v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 111 (2024), went further. The court described employment in a protected environment as a lower-income position that is "shielded in some respect from competition" in the labor market. The work does not have to be completely shielded, the existence of accommodations alone is not enough, and there is no bright-line test; the analysis depends on the facts.
What a report should do: explain specifically how the veteran's position is shielded from ordinary competition, for example a relative's business that keeps the veteran on despite missed days, and why the same veteran would not keep a comparable job with an unrelated employer. See our guide to marginal employment.
Beaty v. Brown (1994): Evidence, Not Conjecture
In Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532 (1994), the court required VA to support a denial with evidence of the veteran's ability to work, "as distinguished from mere conjecture." The case is often cited when a denial rests on general statements that the veteran "could do some kind of work."
What a report should do: answer the question with specifics: named occupations, their requirements, and why each is or is not within the veteran's limits. A report that names no jobs and cites no requirements looks like conjecture too. The same standard applies in reverse: if a C&P examiner says the veteran can work without explaining how, the report can point out that the conclusion rests on no stated evidence.
Withers v. Wilkie (2018): What "Sedentary" Means
In Withers v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 139 (2018), the court held that "sedentary" has no fixed meaning in VA law. When the Board finds a veteran capable of sedentary work, it must explain what that means and how the veteran's education, training, and work history bear on the ability to do such work.
What a report should do: meet the sedentary argument directly. Explain what sedentary jobs actually require, including sitting tolerance, concentration, keyboard use, and customer contact, and whether a veteran with this education and work history has the skills to get them. See our sedentary work rebuttal guide.
Geib v. Shinseki (2013) and Floore v. Shinseki (2013): Combined Effects
In Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit held that the ultimate TDIU decision belongs to VA, not a medical examiner, and that VA is not required to obtain a single medical opinion on the combined effects of all service-connected conditions. In Floore v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 376 (2013), the CAVC held that whether a combined-effects exam is needed is decided case by case, and the Board must still consider and explain the combined effect of the disabilities.
What a report should do: supply the combined analysis the file often lacks. Separate exams for each condition rarely explain how knee pain, sleep disruption, and concentration problems together affect a workday. A vocational expert can pull those threads together in employment terms.
Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake (2008): What Makes an Opinion Probative
Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008), held that an opinion's probative value comes from its reasoning, not from a mere conclusion, and pointed to factors like those in Federal Rule of Evidence 702: whether the opinion rests on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and a reliable application of those methods to the facts. The court also said review of the claims file is not what gives an opinion value in itself; what matters is whether the expert had an accurate factual picture.
What a report should do: show its work. List the records reviewed, describe the method, and connect every conclusion to cited evidence. See how to evaluate vocational evidence quality.
Rice v. Shinseki (2009): TDIU as Part of the Rating Claim
Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), held that TDIU is not a separate claim but part of an initial rating or increased rating claim when unemployability is raised. This matters for effective dates, and it means a vocational opinion may need to cover the entire period since the underlying claim, not just the present.
What a report should do: state the period the opinion covers and, when an earlier effective date is at stake, cite dated evidence for when unemployability began.
Regulations Every Report Should Respect
- 38 CFR § 4.16(a): the schedular thresholds, the marginal employment and poverty threshold rule, and the protected-environment language
- 38 CFR § 4.16(b): extraschedular TDIU, including consideration of employment history and educational and vocational attainment
- 38 CFR § 4.19: age may not be considered in TDIU determinations
- Non-service-connected conditions: they cannot be counted toward unemployability, so a report must separate them out
Putting It Together
None of this means a report should read like a legal brief. The vocational expert does not decide legal questions; the adjudicator does. But a report organized around these decisions answers the questions the Board is required to ask, in the vocabulary the Board uses, with evidence it can cite. That is what makes a report hard to set aside. For attorneys, see why attorneys use vocational experts, or contact us about a specific case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Ray v. Wilkie decide about TDIU?
It defined substantially gainful employment as having an economic part, income above the poverty threshold, and a non-economic part covering education, training, work history, and physical and mental abilities.
What is a protected work environment for TDIU?
After Cantrell and LaBruzza, it is a lower-income position shielded in some respect from ordinary competition. It need not be fully shielded, and accommodations alone are not enough.
Does the VA need a combined-effects medical opinion for TDIU?
Not always. Geib and Floore say it is decided case by case, but the Board must still consider and explain the combined effect of the service-connected disabilities.
Can the VA deny TDIU by saying I can do sedentary work?
It must explain what sedentary means and how your education, training, and work history affect your ability to do that work, under Withers v. Wilkie.
Should a vocational report cite case law?
It should address the questions the case law requires, such as the Ray factors and protected-environment facts, even if it does not argue the law itself.
Our standard TDIU vocational assessment is a flat $1,599 (see pricing), and the written report is delivered in 5–7 business days once we have both your records and the completed interview. Not sure it fits your case? Request a free case fit check.