Citation Nr: 1006983 Decision Date: 02/25/10 Archive Date: 03/05/10 DOCKET NO. 08-16 405A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Evan Deichert, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from July 1969 to July 1971. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and the Silver Star. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2007 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Petersburg, Florida Regional Office (RO). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND A TDIU is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (2009), providing that such a rating may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total, and when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service- connected disabilities. If there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. The Veteran is service connected for three separate disabilities: residuals of a gunshot wound; type II diabetes and its resultant complications (including bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities); and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran meets the schedular criteria for a TDIU, as his combined rating is 80 percent, and his PTSD is rated as 50 percent disabling. More development must be done, however, with regard to the impact that his service-connected disabilities have on his ability to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. Though such findings were made with regard to PTSD in an October 2009 VA examination, no findings have been made as to whether the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his other service-connected disabilities. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine whether his service-connected disabilities, together have rendered him unemployable. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service- connected disabilities, diabetes and its resultant complications, residuals of a gunshot wound, and PTSD. 2. The RO should then readjudicate the case. If such action does not resolve the claim, a Supplemental Statement of the Case should be issued to the Veteran. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, this claim should be returned to this Board for further appellate review, if in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2009). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2009).