Citation Nr: 20003353 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 12-18 249 DATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of right wrist fracture (dominant) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from February 1981 to January 1985. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from January 2012 and May 2015 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at the RO in May 2014. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In June 2016, the Veteran was informed that the VLJ that presided over his hearing was unavailable to participate in a decision in his appeal and that he had the right to another hearing conducted by a VLJ who would ultimately decide his appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.707. In October 2017, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before another VLJ. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In February 2018, the Veteran was informed that the VLJ who presided over his second hearing was also unavailable to participate in a decision on his appeal and that he had the right to another hearing. However, in a February 2018 written statement, the Veteran responded that he did not want another hearing. Therefore, the hearing request is considered withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e) (2018). In September 2014, May 2017, and April 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran’s appeal to the RO for further evidentiary development. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of right wrist fracture (dominant) is remanded. The Board’s April 2018 remand requested that a VA examination be completed that identified any associated neurological or muscle abnormalities that may be associated with the service-connected residuals of right wrist fracture. The remand directive further requested that “[i]f any such abnormalities were present, the nerves and/or muscle groups affected or seemingly affected should be identified and the severity of each neurological or muscle group deficit must be reported, if such exists as mild, moderate, moderately severe, or severe in nature.” On September 2018 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s service-connected right wrist condition had resulted in decreased sensation to the right hand and right wrist in glove distribution; unable to make a fist with his right hand; unable to keep his palm flat; mild F contracture right hand with MCP deformity right 5th and 2nd, and an enlarged right wrist. Although this examination indicates the Veteran has neurological symptoms of the right hand and wrist and orthopedic or muscle related symptoms of the right hand that may be related to the service-connected right wrist disability, the examiner did not provide any further information as requested by the April 2018 Board remand. As a result, the Board cannot adequately determine whether any separate ratings may be warranted for the identified manifestations. As such, remand is necessary in order to arrange for a VA examination or examinations to evaluate these associated symptoms. 2. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The matter seeking entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claims being remanded. Accordingly, the Board will defer decision on the matter of TDIU. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The Board notes that in December 2019 written argument, the Veteran’s representative indicated that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) had requested the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation file in July 2018 and that the file did not indicate that this record had been obtained. However, a review of the record reflects that July 2018 email correspondence indicates that the vocational rehabilitation file was scanned into the record in May 2017 and that it should already be associated with the claims file. A review of the record reflects that the Veteran’s vocational rehabilitation file was associated with the electronic record in July 2017. Hence, further development to obtain this file does not appear to be necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from April 2019 to the present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination(s) by an appropriate clinician or clinicians to determine the nature and severity of the Veteran’s right wrist condition, to include an evaluation of any neurological manifestations in the right wrist or hand, and any orthopedic or muscle related manifestations in the right hand. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s service-connected right wrist disability and associated manifestations under the rating criteria, using the appropriate Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) or other equivalent for the Hand and Fingers (Musculoskeletal), Muscle Injuries, and Peripheral Nerve conditions to assess the severity of any associated manifestations, to include those identified by the September 2018 VA examiner. 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of TDIU. In doing so, the AOJ should consider whether referral of the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU to the Director, Compensation Service, for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) is warranted. If any benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Dean The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.