Citation Nr: 20022072 Decision Date: 03/30/20 Archive Date: 03/30/20 DOCKET NO. 15-39 062 DATE: March 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 16, 2003 to August 22, 2003 and from February 21, 2005 to June 15, 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities. The Veteran reports that in April 13, 2007 when he was driving to a drill in the Santiago Camp in Salinas, Puerto Rico, and got into an accident that severely affected his neck, back, waist, knees and hip. He reports that currently he suffers from severe pains that make it difficult for him to perform daily tasks. See Statement in Support of Claim dated May 2011. The Veteran also reports that since he returned from Iraq, he has been in Mental Health treatment at VA with therapies and medications and the VA Medical History. On November 14, 2010 he had a crisis and was hospitalized at the Panamerican Psychiatric Hospital, Mutual Aid Hospital unit in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. As a result of his hospitalization, he reports that he had to attend constant appointments which resulted in the Veteran being fired. See May 2011 Statement in Support of Claim. The Board notes that in a March 2020 rating decision, service connection for sinusitis was granted and assigned a 30 percent disability rating effective December 16, 2019. While the rating decision stated that entitlement to a TDIU was reconsidered and continued to be denied, it is unclear as to what evidence was considered in so doing. Specifically, the February 2020 VA sinusitis examination simply stated that sinusitis did not impact the Veteran’s ability to work. However, no explanation was provided for this opinion. Moreover, there is no clear indication as to how all the service connected disabilities impact the Veteran’s ability to work. In this regard, the Board notes that the more recent VA examinations of record pertaining to the other service connected disabilities date back to 2017. Finally, the Board notes there is no updated VA Form 21-8940, application for a TDIU, of record. The Board notes that, in February 2015, the Veteran was asked to complete and return a VA Form 21-8940 so that VA could fully develop his TDIU claim; however, the Veteran did not submit a completed copy of this form. Given that the Veteran now has additional service connected disability and due to the passage of time since the initial request, and to ensure full compliance with the duty to assist, the Board will provide the Veteran with one more opportunity to provide the requested information. However, the Veteran is reminded that in pursuing a claim, a claimant has a responsibility to cooperate in developing all facts pertinent to the claim; that is to say, VA's duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). If the Veteran wishes help in developing his claim, he cannot passively wait for it in circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Id. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request that the Veteran complete and return VA Form 21-8940 (an official TDIU application), providing his education, special training, employment history with salary information and average hours worked. The Veteran is reminded that in pursuing a claim, a claimant has a responsibility to cooperate in developing all facts pertinent to the claim; that is to say, VA's duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). 2. Obtain and associate updated VA treatment records for the service connected disabilities. 3. After completing the development above, review the evidence and determine whether further development is warranted for a TDIU for the entire period on appeal, to scheduling any additional needed VA examinations. 4. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christina Pollonais 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.