Citation Nr: 18142561 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 17-45 294 DATE: October 17, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent disabling for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation service connected horizontal surgical scars to the anterior neck, above the suprasternal notch is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected residuals of thyroid cancer, status post (s/p) total thyroidectomy is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent disabling for service-connected major depressive disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from May 1966 to May 1968. His tenure of service included a period of service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Board notes that the Veteran was scheduled for a video conference hearing in September 2018. However, in an August 2018 statement of support, the Veteran requested that the Board proceed with a decision in this matter without a formal hearing. As the record does not contain any additional requests for an appeal hearing, the Board deems the Veteran’s request for a hearing to be withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.702 (2017). The TDIU issue was raised as a component of the increased rating claims on appeal. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). In May 2018, the Board issued a decision that deferred consideration of the instant issues as they were not ripe for appellate disposition at that time. Since then, the issues have become ripe for appellate review. Hence, the instant decision. In the May 2018 decision, the Board also remanded three issues involving service connection for (1) hypertension and (2) PTSD, as well as entitlement to an increased rating for (3) IHD. Those three issues remain pending in remand status at the RO. The RO has not issued a supplemental statement of the case on those issues or other returned them to the Board for further appellate processing. As such, they are not within the scope of the instant decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.38. A February 2016 notice of disagreement raised the issues of entitlement to service connection for dysphagia, to include as secondary to his service-connected residuals of thyroid cancer and entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability. A formal claim was not filed. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them, and the issues are therefore referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. 38 C.F.R. §19.9 (b). 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent disabling for service-connected bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation service connected horizontal surgical scars to the anterior neck, above the suprasternal notch. 3. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected residuals of thyroid cancer, status post (s/p) total thyroidectomy. 4. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent disabling for service-connected major depressive disorder (MDD) are remanded. 5. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU). These issues are remanded for new VA examinations. In a September 2018 statement, the Veteran’s representative asserted that the AOJ errored in assigning disability evaluations for his service-connected conditions. The representative set forth specific contentions as to each disability. Regarding MDD, the representative asserted that the November 2015 VA opinion indicated that the Veteran’s current symptomology and level of impairment resulted in occupational and social impairment with reduced liability and productivity. Although these finding more closely approximates an evaluation of 50 percent disabling, an evaluation of 20 percent disabling was assigned. The Board notes at this point that the current 20 percent rating was assigned based on post-service aggravation of a preexisting disability. The RO’s February 2016 rating decision assigned the 20 percent disability rating recognizing that the Veteran’s symptoms met the criteria for a 50 percent rating but with a 30 percent disability rating subtracted for the pre-service level of disability. This resulted in the current 20 percent rating. In either event, the representative’s brief argued that the November 2015 VA examiner failed to adequately consider the impact of the Veteran’s symptoms on his employability. In support of this contention, attention was called the Veteran’s grant of SSA benefits in December 2003. The benefits determination was based on a finding that the Veteran became disabled (and unable to maintain employment) in May 2002 due to his mental health condition. Regarding hearing loss, the representative asserted that during the November 2015 audiological evaluation, the Veteran reported difficulty hearing in conversations, while watching television, and while driving. The representative argued that the VA examiner failed to adequately consider the Veteran’s hearing loss in terms the impact on his activities of daily living, to include his ability to work. Regarding thyroid cancer residuals, the representative disputed the assigned evaluations for his service-connected residuals of thyroid cancer and scars to the anterior neck. Specifically, the representative contended that surgical procedure for treatment of the Veteran’s thyroid cancer was significant, and therefore, a higher evaluation for related scarring is warranted. On review of the record, the Board recognizes that the Veteran’s service- connected disabilities were last evaluated in November 2015. The Veteran’s September 2018 statement suggests that the current severity and manifestations of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities requires reevaluation. The Board recognizes the Veteran’s concern about his health and age as it concerns his limited ability to travel. However, as the probative evidence is currently inadequate to resolve the appeals, remand for new VA examinations is necessary. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.326, 3.327 (2015); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). While the appeal is in remand status any outstanding VA and private treatment records should be obtained and associated with the record. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b). The claim for a TDIU is intertwined with the remanded issues. As such, a decision by the Board on the Veteran's TDIU claim would, at this point, be premature. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991); cf Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79 (2014). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to bilateral hearing loss alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s hearing loss on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected horizontal surgical scars to the anterior neck, above the suprasternal notch. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail along with supportive rationale. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected residuals of thyroid cancer, status post (s/p) total thyroidectomy. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail along with supportive rationale. 5. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected MDD. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail along with supportive rationale. C. BOSELY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Whitaker, Associate Counsel