Citation Nr: 18158352 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 16-50 862 DATE: December 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for non-epileptic events, complex partial seizures, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1998 to November 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2017, the Veteran and his wife testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The evidence of record reasonably raises a claim for entitlement to a TDIU. Accordingly, that issue has been added to the cover page. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for non-epileptic events, complex partial seizures, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. The Veteran seeks an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected non-epileptic events, complex partial seizures. In May 2018, the Veteran submitted a letter from Dr. Li, which provided general information on seizure activity for various years. However, to adequately consider the claim and to determine whether various staged ratings are needed, the actual clinical records from Dr. Li are needed. Although, there is a treatment report from Dr. Lee dated in September 2013, that letter is not clear as to the complete dates of the seizure activity. Thus, the clinical treatment records from Dr. Li dated from January 2012 to the present should be requested. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that he has applied for Social Security disability benefits and is still fighting that claim. Records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) should be requested on remand. Finally, a claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) may be a component of a claim for higher rating if it is raised by the record. See Rice, 22 Vet. App. 447. At the September 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran testified he last worked in 2011 and that his service-connected seizure disorder and medications hinder his ability to work. In light of the above, the Board finds that a claim for TDIU has been reasonably raised by the record, and further development is needed. Id.   The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide a fully completed release form so that the complete treatment records from Dr. Li can be requested. After securing the necessary release, request the Dr. Li provide copies of all clinical records dating since January 2012. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. Advise the Veteran of the information and evidence needed to substantiate a claim for TDIU and ask him to fully complete a VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. Following receipt of a properly completed Form 21-8940, conduct appropriate development to the employers identified. 3. Request SSA records pertinent to the Veteran's claim for SSA disability benefits as well as the medical records relied upon concerning that claim. All actions should be documented in the claims file. If the requested records are not available, the Veteran should be notified of such. (Continued on next page) 4. After completing the requested actions, and any additional action deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim for a higher initial rating for seizures, and adjudicate the claim for a TDIU. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the appellant and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond, before the case is returned to the Board, if in order. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Birder, Associate Counsel