Citation Nr: 21000656 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 18-11 133A DATE: January 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected left foot talipes cavus is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected right foot talipes cavus 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 from September 1971 to June 1977. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a June 2019 decision, the Board granted a separate 20 percent disability rating for left foot talipes cavus and denied an increase in excess of 10 percent for right foot talipes cavus. The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). As set forth in an April 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the parties requested that the Court vacate the portion of the June 2019 Board decision that denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot talipes cavus and denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for left foot talipes cavus and remand the case for actions consistent with the JMPR; which found error in the Board's explanation, in the context of the facts presented, on the subjective meaning of the terms of degree in diagnosis code 5284. See Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 221, 224 (2011). Specifically, the difference between moderate, moderately severe and severe. During the appeal period, the Veteran indicated that his service-connected foot disorders result in unemployability. When evidence of unemployability is submitted at the same time that a veteran is appealing the rating assigned for a disability, a claim for TDIU will be considered as part and parcel of the claim for benefits for the underlying disability. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Accordingly, the Board has added the issue of TDIU as reflected above. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left foot talipes cavus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot talipes cavus is remanded. The Veteran was last provided a VA examination for his foot disorders in December 2015. However, the Veteran has submitted a statement indicating that his symptoms have worsened, specifically noting increased levels and frequency of pain. See October 2020 Veteran’s affidavit. Thus, as there is evidence of a potential increase in severity of the Veteran's disability, the Board finds that a new examination is needed to fully and fairly evaluate his claim. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 402-03 (1997). 3. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded As noted above, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU has been raised as part and parcel to the Veteran’s claim for higher disability ratings. In addition to being raised by the record, the Board notes the Veteran filed a formal claim for increased compensation based on unemployability in September 2020. As the issue of entitlement to TDIU can be impacted by resolution of the Veteran’s foot disability claims, the Board finds that the issue of entitlement to TDIU must also be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the Veteran’s claims file any outstanding VA treatment records related to the Veteran’s claim on appeal. 2. Schedule an appropriate VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral foot disability. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E.V. Palatt, Associate Counsel 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.