Citation Nr: 18145058 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 11-15 712 DATE: October 26, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to April 7, 2016, and in excess of 20 percent as of April 7, 2016, for a right foot disability, to include hammertoes, is remanded. Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to increased ratings for a right foot disability, to include hammertoes, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to higher ratings for a right foot disability. In an October 2018 statement the Veteran asserted that his condition is worse than currently contemplated by the rating. The Veteran has not had a VA examination since May 2016 and has alleged worsening of the disability. As a result, a more current examination is needed to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran’s right foot disability. A claim for TDIU has been raised by the record. The Veteran has stated at various times in the appeal that he is unable to work and has lost employment as a result of a service-connected right foot disability. When entitlement to TDIU is raised during a claim for increased rating, it is part of the claim for benefits for the underlying disability. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The TDIU claim is inextricably intertwined with the claim for increased rating. As a result, the claim for TDIU cannot be decided without first addressing the Veteran’s increased rating claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Secure all outstanding VA medical records. If any records cannot be located, specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them, and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. If records are unable to be obtained (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that VA is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claim. The claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Then schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of any right foot disability. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. The examiner should provide a full description of the right foot disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for rating the disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms, functional impairments, and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s right foot disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the record. The examiner should determine the functional effects of the service-connected disabilities (major depressive disorder, narcolepsy with restless leg syndrome, a right foot disability, low back strain, erectile dysfunction, and migraine headaches) on the Veteran’s ability to work, with a complete discussion of all functional impairments impacting social and industrial opportunities. The examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran is unable to obtain or retain substantially gainful employment due to the service-connected disabilities, consistent with his training and experience. If the Veteran is felt capable of work despite the service-connected disabilities, the examiner should state what type of work and what accommodations would be necessary due to the service-connected disabilities. The examination report must include a complete rationale for the opinions and conclusions reached. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. D. Cross, Associate Counsel