Citation Nr: 18151074 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 960 DATE: November 20, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1967 to March 1970. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities provided that if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more such disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Here, the Veteran has met the percentage requirements for entitlement to a TDIU since August 30, 2011 based on service-connection for PTSD, and now also carcinoma of the left larynx. Total disability will be considered to exist when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. Consideration may be given to the veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not to his or her age or to the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. The Veteran receives Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits for personality disorder as well as substance addiction disorder. At his August 2013 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s symptoms appeared to be related more to his personality disorder and that historically his alcohol and drug abuse have been responsible for the Veteran’s poor vocational performance. The examiner also noted that the Veteran did not appear unemployable solely due to is PTSD and that the functional impairment due to the service-connected PTSD would require the Veteran to work in a more solitary environment. The examiner added that the Veteran appears capable to complete simple repetitive tasks that can be performed in an environment that does not have strict quotas for production. In an October 2014 VA examination report, regarding the impact of his service-connected laryngeal carcinoma on his ability to work, the Veteran reported fatigue with ambulating short distances. The evidence is unclear as to whether the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities as a whole render him unable to secure or maintain substantially gainful employment. The Board finds that a new examination as to the Veteran’s ability to work is necessary, inasmuch as none of the above examinations appeared to consider the cumulative impact of the Veteran’s service connected disabilities, and such an opinion would be helpful to the Board. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Associate all VA treatment records from June 2016 to the present with the electronic claims file. 2. Forward the Veteran’s claims file to an appropriate examiner for an opinion regarding the Veteran’s employability. Another in-person examination of the Veteran is not required unless such an examination is deemed necessary by the reviewing examiner. The VA examiner should provide an opinion as to the functional effect of the service-connected PTSD with dysthymic disorder and laryngeal carcinoma, both individually and considered together, on the ability to secure (obtain) and follow (maintain) substantially gainful employment. 3. The VA examiner should also review the relevant evidence in the claims folder, to include any prior VA medical examinations in the course of rendering any opinion. Thereafter, the examiner should offer the following opinions: In rendering these opinions, the VA examiner should consider the Veteran’s education, special training, and previous work experience, but should not consider his age or the effect of any non-service-connected disabilities.   A rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions rendered. K. PARAKKAL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Williams, Counsel