Citation Nr: 18156771 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-58 610 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 30 percent prior to January 16, 2014 for coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting with atrial fibrillation requiring a pacemaker (CAD) is remanded. The issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 30 percent from April 1, 2014 for CAD is remanded. The issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REFERRED In the Veteran’s November 2016 VA Form 9, he raised the issue of entitlement to back pay following hospitalization for his coronary artery bypass surgery asserting he was entitled to a 100 percent disability rating for a period of three months. November 2016 VA Form 9; see also February 2017 Notice of Disagreement. This claim is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction for adjudication. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to December 1968, during the Vietnam Era. During the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran was granted a temporary total disability rating from January 16, 2014 until March 31, 2014 following hospitalization for the implantation of a cardiac pacemaker. October 2016 Rating Decision. As such, the maximum benefit available has been awarded for the period from January 16, 2014 through March 31, 2014 and the issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating for CAD from January 16, 2014 through March 31, 2014 is no longer before the Board. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). 1. The issues of entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 30 percent prior to January 16, 2014 for CAD; and entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 30 percent from April 1, 2014 for CAD are remanded. With regard to these claims, the relevant timeframe for consideration is from January 15, 2012 to January 15, 2014 and from April 1, 2014 to the present. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o) (2017); January 2013 Statement in Support of Claim (received by the VA on January 15, 2013). A review of the claims file suggests the Veteran has been receiving treatment through the VA throughout these relevant periods, but there are no treatment records associated with the file for the year 2012. Further, his treatment records end in October 2016 and since that time no new treatment records have been added to the claims file, much less have been requested. Given the foregoing, a remand is appropriate to obtain all relevant, outstanding VA treatment records. 2. The issue of entitlement to TDIU. In addition to the above, the Veteran is also service-connected for diabetes mellitus type II. He last underwent a VA examination for his diabetes mellitus type II in August 2011, well before the commencement of this claim. August 2013 Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. As another matter, he has been diagnosed with other nonservice-connected conditions, which may impact his ability to function in an occupational environment. See September 2013 Statement in Support of Claim. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination to determine the occupational impairment attributable to the combination of his service-connected disabilities. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all relevant, outstanding VA treatment records, to include the treatment records for the year 2012 and from October 2016 to the present. 2. Once the first request has been completed, to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate medical professional to determine the occupational impairment resulting from the combination of his service connected disabilities in terms of his ability to function in an occupational environment. In doing so, the examiner should distinguish between the occupational impairment resulting from the combination of his service-connected disabilities and his nonservice-connected diagnoses. 3. Once the above requests have been completed, to the extent possible, readjudicate the appeal. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Suh, Associate Counsel