Citation Nr: 20032736 Decision Date: 05/11/20 Archive Date: 05/11/20 DOCKET NO. 10-40 895A DATE: May 11, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities for the period from March 24, 2009 to July 18, 2013 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND This case was previously before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) and entitlement to TDIU was denied in December 2018. The Veteran appealed the Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court). In November 2019, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), which directed the Board to discuss whether the combined effects of Veteran’s service-connected disabilities preclude him from securing or following substantially gainful employment for the entire period from March 2009 to present. The December 2018 Board decision was vacated and the claim was remanded. During the pendency of the appeal, a February 2020 rating decision granted entitlement to TDIU effective from July 19, 2013. As such, the period on appeal is from March 24, 2009, the date of the initial increased rating claim, to July 18, 2013. The Board finds that additional development is warranted. The record contains conflicting information on the Veteran’s dates of employment during the appeal period. In October 2018, the Veteran reported that he was employed full-time from February 2010 to April 2011. However, in August 2011, a treating clinician provided a letter to the Veteran, which included a statement that the Veteran was still employed and doing maintenance work. Additionally, a May 2011 statement from the Veteran indicates that he was still employed. Further, the Board notes that a May 2012 Request for Employment Information (VA Form 21-4192) appears to have been completed by the Veteran, rather than his former employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs. For these reasons, the Board finds that the additional development is warranted. An attempt should be made to obtain a completed Request for Employment Information (VA Form 21-4192) from VA. Additionally, the Veteran should be provided the opportunity to submit any additional evidence. Additionally, an addendum opinion should be obtained. A September 2018 private opinion discusses the Veteran’s occupational impairment, including difficulty walking, lifting, and fatigue that the vocational counselor attributed to coronary artery disease. However, the Board notes that it is unclear whether symptoms such as dyspnea and fatigue, are due to coronary artery disease or nonservice-connected disabilities. A December 2012 VA examiner determined that coronary artery disease would not prevent him from physical or sedentary work, but also noted that the Veteran had dyspnea and fatigue. October 2011, March 2012, and June 2012 VA treatment records noted the Veteran’s functional limitations due to dyspnea, but indicate that his cardiac conditions were unlikely to cause his symptom of dyspnea. The treatment records noted that an echocardiogram was recommended to assess the Veteran’s cardiac contribution to dyspnea. As nonservice-connected conditions cannot be considered in the adjudication of TDIU claims, the Board finds that clarification is warranted. On remand, an addendum opinion should be provided on the functional impairment of the Veteran’s coronary artery disease for the period from March 24, 2009 to July 18, 2013. Additionally, the clinician should address whether his dyspnea and fatigue, and any resulting functional impairment, is at least as likely as not associated with his coronary artery disease. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. An attempt should be made to obtain a completed Request for Employment Information (VA Form 21-4192) from the Veteran’s former employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the functional impairment of the Veteran’s coronary artery disease for the period from March 24, 2009 to July 18, 2013. The examiner should describe the functional impairment due to service-connected coronary artery disease only. Additionally, the clinician should address whether dyspnea and fatigue, and any resulting functional impairment, is at least as likely as not associated with coronary artery disease. Attention is invited to the October 2011, March 2012, and June 2012 VA treatment records noting the Veteran’s functional limitations due to dyspnea and referral for an echocardiogram was recommended to assess the Veteran’s cardiac contribution to dyspnea. K. J. ALIBRANDO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Vang, Department of Veterans Affairs 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.