Citation Nr: 18150247 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/14/18 DOCKET NO. 15-32 106 DATE: November 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right epididymitis with testicular atrophy (hereinafter “right testicle disability”) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1963 to July 1965. The matter on appeal was previously before the Board in December 2017, whereupon it was remanded for evidentiary development. Increased rating for right testicle disability In its December 2017 remand, the Board directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to afford the Veteran a VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected right testicle disability. See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The AOJ scheduled examinations on two separate occasions in early 2018; however, the record reflects that the Veteran cancelled the examinations. In October 2018, the Veteran submitted correspondence indicating that his income was limited and he was unable to pay a doctor for evidence regarding his claim. He further stated that he was unable to travel to the hospital due to vision problems. Notably, the Veteran has also reported that he has been diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. The Board notes that a remand confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In light of the above information provided by the Veteran, the Board finds that good cause has been shown for his failure to report for the requested examinations. As such, the appeal must be remanded in order to schedule another examination to evaluate his right testicle disability. It is general VA policy that if a Veteran is unable to travel to a specific location, VA will (under its duty to assist) attempt to accommodate the Veteran by arranging for the examination at a more accessible VA location (or an accessible fee basis location). Accordingly, the AOJ should provide such assistance as is necessary to enable the Veteran to attend the examination. The Veteran is advised that when there is a failure to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with a claim for increase, the governing regulations mandate that such claim be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). TDIU The Veteran has asserted that he is unemployable as a result of his service-connected right testicle disability. Accordingly, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU has been raised. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 454 (2009). However, the Veteran has not been provided adequate notice of the requirements to substantiate TDIU, nor has the AOJ addressed this issue in the first instance. Hence, it must be remanded. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain outstanding VA medical records pertaining to the Veteran, to include records dating from July 2018 to the present. 2. Take appropriate steps to schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his service-connected right testicle disability. Please note that the Veteran has reported having difficulty obtaining transportation for previously scheduled examinations due to his medical disabilities, as well as due to the cost of travel. Accordingly, the AOJ should attempt to accommodate the Veteran by arranging for the examination at a more accessible VA location, to include at an accessible fee basis location, if appropriate. 3. Provide the Veteran with notice regarding the requirements to substantiate entitlement to a TDIU. (Continued on the next page)   4. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to a TDIU. If the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Minot, Associate Counsel