Citation Nr: 1805806 Decision Date: 01/30/18 Archive Date: 02/07/18 DOCKET NO. 13-22 195A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for ischemic heart disease (IHD). 2. Entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Penelope E. Gronbeck, Attorney WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and his daughter ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.A. Gelber, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1969 to April 1971. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), after the Veteran filed a claim for increased rating in January 2012. See VA Form 21-526b, received January 17, 2012. In March 2017, the Veteran and his daughter, in Montgomery, Alabama, testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the virtual file and reviewed. A December 2016 rating decision assigned a 100 percent rating for IHD effective December 8, 2016. Although an increased rating was granted, the issue remained in appellate status, as the maximum schedular rating had not been assigned for the entire period on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38-39 (1993). TDIU is deemed to be a component of the claim for an increased rating for IHD in light of the Veteran's statements that symptoms of his service-connected IHD prevent him from maintaining gainful employment. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND A December 2016 VA examination indicates continuing treatment for IHD at VA medical facilities, however, the virtual file does not contain VA treatment records after June 2012. In March 2017, the Veteran testified that he is in receipt of Social Security Agency (SSA) disability benefits due to, at least in part, his heart disability; however, SSA records have not been associated with the virtual file. The AOJ should obtain all SSA records for the Veteran. Additionally, the Board finds that the TDIU matter must be appropriately developed. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the virtual file all outstanding VA treatment records from June 2012 to present. If such records are missing or are otherwise unavailable, this fact should be documented and a formal finding of unavailability should be made with notice to the Veteran. 2. Obtain and associate with the virtual file the Veteran's SSA records. Requests for federal records should continue until the records are obtained or deemed unavailable. If such records are missing or are otherwise unavailable, this fact should be documented and a formal finding of unavailability should be made with notice to the Veteran. 3. Send appropriate notice to the Veteran regarding TDIU and complete any necessary development. This should include sending the Veteran an application form (VA Form 21-8940) and advising the Veteran of the necessity of notifying the AOJ of his employment history and his educational background for proper adjudication of this claim. 4. Thereafter, if any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims 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. §§ 5109B, 7112 (2012). _________________________________________________ Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (2012), 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 this appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2017).