Citation Nr: 21002629 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-37 501 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service with the Air Force from September 1952 to February 1973. The Veteran is currently service connected for hypertension and bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU in his January 30, 2013, notice of disagreement. He reported his hypertension had gotten worse. This limited his ability to continue his employment and caused him undue financial hardship. In an October 2014 Form 9, he reported he was hospitalized as a result of his hypertension. Consequently, it was medically necessary to terminate his employment with the US Marshall Service on July 29, 2005. A July 2017 Board decision took jurisdiction of the TDIU claim pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for TDIU for further development. The Veteran was to be provided appropriate notice of how to develop a TDIU claim, a VA Form 21-8940, Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, and VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefits. In December 2019, notice in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 5103 was sent. The Veteran was asked to complete and return a VA Form 21-8940, and if possible, have the employers identified complete a VA Form 21-4192. This request was renewed in June 2020. In July 2020, the Veteran submitted his VA From 21-8940 and 2005 resignation letter. However, neither document provided a mailing address for his employer. An August 2020 subsequent development asked that he have his former employer at the US Marshall Service complete and return a VA Form 21-4192. A completed form was never received. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his hypertension in February 2011, which found his condition had no effect on his daily activities or usual occupation resulting in work problems. The report noted he retired due to age eligibility or duration of work. A review of the evidence of record found the Veteran was hospitalized from August 28, 2020 to September 1, 2020, and diagnosed with stroke-like symptoms, transient ischemic attack (TIA), urinary tract infection (UTI), hypertension, and high cholesterol. Given that this evidence raised the possibility that his disability has worsened, the Board finds a new VA examination is necessary to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected hypertension. See Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281, 284 (1993); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Furthermore, the Board notes that there is an outstanding request for a VA Form 21-4192. In a November 2020 post-remand brief, the Veteran’s representative raised a duty to assist error. The representative contends that the August 2020 deferred rating ordered a reasonable effort be made to call the Veteran to request employer information, and if that failed to send a letter requesting the address of the Veteran’s employer. However, there is no report of contact in the file and the development letter sent in August 2020 requested the Veteran reach out to his former employer to complete the VA Form 21-4192. The representative maintains that the VA failed in their duty to assist this Veteran of advanced age in developing his employment history. As was discussed in detail above, the Veteran had multiple opportunities to provide additional information on his former employer and failed to do so. As such, the Board's information regarding his employment history is limited. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 ("The duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances fairness where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence."). However, as the claim is already being remanded for additional development the Veteran will be afforded the opportunity to provide additional information regarding his employment history. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate all outstanding VA and non-VA treatment records with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician regarding the current severity of his hypertension. The examiner should elicit from the Veteran his complete educational, vocational, and employment history and should note his complaints regarding the impact of his hypertension on employment. The examiner should identify all limitations or functional impairment caused solely by hypertension. 3. Provide the Veteran a VA Form 21-8940 and subsequently a VA Form 21-4192. Request that he provide relevant employment information including the name and address of prior employers. 4. After completion of the above and any additional development deemed necessary, the issue on appeal should be reviewed with consideration of all applicable laws and regulations. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Byers 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.