Citation Nr: 18143837 Decision Date: 10/22/18 Archive Date: 10/22/18 DOCKET NO. 16-30 819 DATE: October 22, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation purposes based on unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service in the Army from December 1969 to July 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a February 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Wichita, Kansas. The Board recognizes that the Veteran is in receipt of a 100 percent schedular rating for service-connected squamous cell cancer of the left upper lobe, status post wedge resection, left upper lobectomy, and mediastinal lymphadenectomy. The Veteran is additionally separately service-connected for ischemic heart disease and scars of the left lateral chest and midline. VA's duty to maximize benefits requires it to assess all of a claimant's service-connected disabilities to determine whether any combination of the disabilities establishes eligibility for special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s) (2012). See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250-51 (2010); Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008). In Bradley, 22 Vet. App. 280, the Court held that 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s) permits a TDIU rating based on a single disability to satisfy the statutory requirement of a "total" rating. When a veteran is awarded TDIU based on a single disability and receives schedular disability ratings for other conditions, SMC based on the statutory housebound criteria may be awarded so long as the same disability is not counted twice, i.e., as a basis for TDIU and as a separate disability rated 60 percent or more disabling. See 75 Fed. Reg. 11,229, 11,230, Summary of Precedent Opinions of the VA General Counsel (March 10, 2010) (withdrawing VAOPGCPREC 6-1999 in light of Bradley, 22 Vet. App. at 280 ). A veteran with a 100 percent schedular disability rating for a single service-connected disability could also obtain a TDIU based on an additional single separate disability (though not on multiple service-connected disabilities), in order to meet the SMC requirements of a“total” single disability rating, plus schedular 100 percent rating (60 percent or more rating). Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, and 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, and 3.326(a) (2017). See also Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). This includes a duty to procure relevant records in the custody of another Federal department or agency. 38 C.F.R. § 5103A (c)(1)(C). The Veteran submitted correspondence indicating that he took early retirement due to his service-connected heart condition and would be applying for Social Security disability benefits and TDIU. The Veteran submitted a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) indicating that he was found to be entitled to monthly disability benefits beginning in November 2014. However, no additional records from SSA have been associated with the claims file. Evidence suggests that the SSA records relate to the Veteran’s service-connected ischemic heart disease; therefore, they are considered relevant to the claim. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (although not required to obtain all SSA records, VA must still obtain SSA records that are relevant to the issue on appeal). Because such records are considered relevant to the issue on appeal, VA has a duty to procure them before a decision may be made on the merits. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (e)(1), if either at the time or after the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) receives a substantive appeal, the claimant or the claimant’s representative, if any, submits evidence to either the agency of original jurisdiction or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for consideration in connection with the issue or issues with which disagreement has been expressed, such evidence shall be subject to initial review by the Board unless the claimant or the claimant’s representative, as the case may be, requests in writing that the agency of original jurisdiction initially review such evidence. However, if evidence is generated by VA, automatic waiver of AOJ consideration is not presumed. The Board notes that additional VA treatment records have been associated with the claims file since the last statement of the case was issued in May 2016. VA treatment records from the Kansas City, Missouri, VA medical center, along with the records of a VA examination dated September and October 2018, were added to the claims file. A waiver of agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) review has not been submitted, nor is a waiver presumed pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (e)(1), because the evidence was generated by VA (rather than submitted by the Veteran). Accordingly, remand is necessary for the AOJ to readjudicate the issue on appeal with consideration of all evidence of record. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s records from the Social Security Administration, to include all disability benefits determinations and clinical evidence upon which such determinations were based. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Thereafter, consider the expanded record, to include VA treatment records from the Kansas City, Missouri, VA medical center, along with the records of a VA examination dated September and October 2018, and readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case. After allowing an appropriate period for response, return the appeal to the Board. U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Reed, Associate Counsel