Citation Nr: 18142625 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 17-60 157 DATE: October 17, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1952 to October 1956. This case comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A TDIU may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). Here, the Veteran is service-connected for bilateral hearing loss rated at 80 percent and tinnitus rated at 10 percent. Therefore, he meets the schedular criteria for consideration of TDIU. The central inquiry in determining whether a TDIU is warranted is “whether a veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability.” Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Consideration may be given to a veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but advancing age and the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities are not for consideration in determining whether such a total disability rating is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.16, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). In his August 2014 VA Form 21-8940, the Veteran indicated that he had had been self-employed as a jeweler. See Id. He did not provide dates of employment or indicate when he became too disabled to work. He reported having a twelfth-grade level education and no other special training. Medical records note the Veteran retired around age 70, and the Veteran reported that he had not worked since 2004. See Medical Treatment Record, dated March 11, 2010, and VA 21-4138, dated September 23, 2014. As part of an August 2014 VA examination, the examiner stated that the Veteran’s hearing loss did not impact ordinary conditions of daily life, including ability to work. At an October 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he owned a jewelry store with a quiet work environment where he often communicated face-to-face with customers and employees. The examiner stated that the Veteran may have trouble working well in very noisy environments, in environments which required him to often use nonface-to-face communications equipment, or in jobs which required a great deal of attention to high pitched sounds. However, the examiner noted that many individuals with the Veteran’s degree of hearing loss and tinnitus, or worse, function well in many occupational settings. The Veteran reported difficulty hearing and understanding conversational speech at a June 2018 VA examination. However, a more recent June 2018 VA examination reflects an apparent negative change in his hearing ability, but there no opinion regarding whether he is still able to maintain employment. As such, a VA medical opinion should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: The examiner who conducted the recent June 2018 audiological examination or, if unavailable, another audiologist should provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s service-connected hearing disabilities prevent him from engaging in a substantially gainful occupation. The Veteran’s age and the effects of non-service-connected disabilities cannot be factors for consideration in making the determination. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed and conclusions reached. J. CONNOLLY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. E., Associate Counsel