Citation Nr: 21000302 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 15-35 107 DATE: January 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1968 to May 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a February 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This claim was previously before the Board in December 2018, when it was remanded for a medical opinion. It now returns for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. There has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s December 2018 remand directive regarding the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. Specifically, the directive required the VA examiner to evaluate the impact of all of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities on his ability to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment in light of his education and work history. In this regard, the Veteran has been awarded service connection for myocardial infarction, status post stent placement (previously rated as coronary artery disease), diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy of upper and lower extremities, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and diabetic retinopathy. Additionally, the Veteran’s July 2012 VA Form 21-8940 shows that he finished four years of college and that he was self-employed as a loan closing agent from 2000 until he stopped working in June 2012. The Veteran’s Social Security Administration records show he worked as a state policeman, was self-employed at a retail store, managed a rental store, and was self-employed as an independent loan closer. Pursuant to the December 2018 Board remand, the resulting September 2019 opinion discussed the impact of each disability on the Veteran’s ability to perform “physical” and “sedentary” work, and concluded, “In aggregate this Veteran’s [service-connected] conditions as noted above would have mild to moderate impact on his ability to perform sedentary employment and moderate to severe impact on his ability to perform physical employment.” However, the September 2019 opinion did not specifically address what this means in the context of the Veteran’s education and work history. Thus, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Please secure for the record copies of complete updated clinical records (any not already of record) of all VA, and/or relevant private treatment, the Veteran has received for his service-connected disabilities. Please ask the Veteran to provide the releases necessary for VA to secure any relevant private treatment records. 2. After the action requested in the above paragraph is complete, please obtain a medical opinion from an appropriate clinician to evaluate the impact of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, when considered in the aggregate, on his ability to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment in light of his education and work history. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. The Veteran’s claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the clinician. The clinician is requested to consider: • The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities of myocardial infarction, status post stent placement (previously rated as coronary artery disease), diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy of upper and lower extremities, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and diabetic retinopathy. • The Veteran’s work history, as detailed in his social security records. • The May 2015 Heart Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire, wherein the Veteran reported that his work as a mobile notary public for a mortgage title company required travel throughout eastern and central Kentucky. 3. The May 2015 Diabetic Sensory-Motor Peripheral Neuropathy Disability Benefits Questionnaire, wherein the Veteran reported great difficulty driving because he was unable to adequately sense the location of his feet on the pedals, and the examiner noted difficulty with hand fine motor skills. ONLY IF the clinician determines that an examination is necessary for the addendum opinion, the Veteran should be scheduled for an appropriate VA examination (or telehealth interview, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) to determine the nature and etiology of the disorder on appeal. 4. After undertaking any other development deemed appropriate, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and afford them an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. M. ESPINOZA Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board O. Halpern 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.