Citation Nr: 18157413 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 17-01 046 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities preclude him from substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a TDIU have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from October 1973 to March 1974 and from January 1975 to August 1998. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). VA will grant entitlement to TDIU when the evidence shows the Veteran is precluded, by reason of his service-connected disabilities, from securing and following “substantially gainful employment” consistent with his education and occupational experience. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16; VAOPGCPREC 75-91; 57 Fed. Reg. 2317 (1992). The central inquiry is “whether the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability.” Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). The sole fact that the Veteran was or is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. A disability rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment, but the Board must evaluate whether there are circumstances in the Veteran’s case, apart from any non-service-connected conditions and advancing age, which would justify a total rating based on individual unemployability due solely to the service-connected conditions. See Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993); see also Blackburn v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 375 (1993). The regulations provide that if there is only one service-connected disability impeding employability, it must be rated at 60 percent or more; and if there are two or more disabilities, at least one disability must be rated at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability must bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. Disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident or disabilities affecting a single body system will be considered as one disability for the above purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Veteran’s combined disability rating in this case is 80 percent and he has one disability rated as 50 percent disabling. Thus, the Veteran meets the schedular criteria for a TDIU. The Veteran submitted a formal application for TDIU in June 2015, noting that he stopped working as an auto mechanic in May 2015 due to his service-connected obstructive sleep apnea and right shoulder, lumbar, right wrist, and left fingers disabilities. He reported having completed two years of high school and two years of college, and no other professional training. Also in June 2015, the Veteran’s employer submitted employment information, noting that the Veteran worked there from July 2008 to May 2015 and missed 3 months of work during that time due to his disabilities. The employer reported that the Veteran retired due to his disabilities. In written statements in January 2016 (with his notice of disagreement) and in February 2017, the Veteran asserted that he is unable to work due to Parkinson’s disease, which he contends is aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. The Veteran filed a claim for service connection for Parkinson’s disease, as being aggravated by his service-connected disabilities, which was denied in a July 2016 rating decision that became final when the Veteran failed to file a substantive appeal in response to the June 2017 statement of the case. The claim appears to have been denied based on a lack of evidence that the Parkinson’s disease was caused by the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, although neither the July 2016 rating decision nor the June 2017 statement of the case address the Veteran’s stated theory of aggravation. See Atencio v. O’Rourke, 30 Vet. App. 74, 91 (2018) (causation and aggravation are independent concepts and should have separate findings and rationale); El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136 (2013) (findings of “not due to,” “not caused by” and “not related to” are insufficient to address the question of aggravation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b)). However, Parkinson’s disease is not currently service connected, and therefore cannot be considered for the basis of the Veteran’s unemployability claim. In September 2015, the Veteran was afforded VA examinations for his service-connected disabilities. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s lumbar disability would affect his ability to work in that it affects movement and activity. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability limited his weight bearing and ambulation as well as lifting and bending. The examination report also noted that pain, fatigue, lack of endurance and incoordination would significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over time. With respect to the Veteran’s right shoulder disability, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s range of motion was limited by 50 percent and that he could not raise his arms above shoulder level. After resolving reasonable benefit of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities preclude him from substantially gainful employment. Although the Veteran has significant nonservice-connected disability in the form of Parkinson’s Disease and although he has some college education, it appears that the only occupation the Veteran has had since the military is that of a mechanic and that he would not be qualified for other employment. Given the physical nature of this type of employment, the Board finds that the evidence is in at least a state of equipoise as to whether the physical limitations from the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine and shoulder disabilities would prevent the Veteran from being able to perform the duties of a mechanic. Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to a TDIU is warranted. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Josey, Associate Counsel