Citation Nr: 18152531 Decision Date: 11/23/18 Archive Date: 11/23/18 DOCKET NO. 15-10 387 DATE: November 23, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative changes of the (non-dominant) left shoulder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1971 to October 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from a February 2013 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida VA Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the record reflects that the Veteran has filed a claim of entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) based upon his service-connected left shoulder disability. See i.e. May 2018 VA correspondence. Regarding TDIU, if the claimant or the record reasonably raises the question of whether the Veteran is unemployable due to a disability for which an increased rating is sought, then part of that claim for an increased rating is whether a TDIU as a result of that disability is warranted. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). However, the Board finds that this matter is distinguished from Rice as the claim was separately and independently adjudicated in a June 2018 rating decision and, to date, has not been appealed. The Board acknowledges that the claim is still within the year window of a timely appeal, but as the record does not indicate such pursuit there is no jurisdiction and the issue of TDIU is not properly before the Board. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative changes of the (non-dominant) left shoulder is remanded. The Veteran was last afforded a VA examination for his left shoulder disability in January 2013, nearly six years ago. Since that time, he has asserted that his symptoms have worsened, and that the examination did not accurately reflect the extent of functional impairment of his left shoulder. See i.e. May 2013 VA Form 21-4138; October 2018 VA Form 21-4192 (“never able to lift anything over 15 lbs.”). Moreover, the medical evidence of record indicates an increase in the severity of his disability, as reflected by a March 2015 private examiner who described the Veteran’s left shoulder joint arthropathy as “severe” and noted that his “next option would be arthroscopic surgery.” Consequently, an updated examination is warranted, especially in light of comparison of these more recent private findings and the results of the January 2013 VA examiner. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997) (holding that a claimant is entitled to a new VA examination where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since the last examination). In addition, the Board notes that the January 2013 examination report failed to comply with the holdings of Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), and Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain outstanding VA medical records pertaining to the Veteran. 2. Ask the Veteran to identify and provide authorization to obtain any outstanding, relevant private medical records. After securing the necessary authorization, these records should be requested. If any records are not available, the Veteran should be notified. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his left shoulder disability. The examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the Veteran’s shoulder symptoms and is requested to test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. If the examination does not take place during a flare, the examiner is asked to glean information regarding the flare’s severity, frequency, duration and functional loss manifestations from the Veteran, medical records and other sources as may be available. The impairment as may be produced should be described. 4. After completion of the above, review the relevant evidence of record and readjudicate the increased rating issue. If any of the benefit sought is not granted in full, then furnish the Veteran and his representative an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and provide an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, return the case to the Board for appellate review. M. E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Department of Veterans Affairs