Citation Nr: 21002857 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 12-10 613 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left wrist degenerative joint disease, status post-fracture and surgical intervention, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2001 to January 2005. These matters come to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2010 rating decision which granted entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability, evaluated at 10 percent, effective October 28, 2009, and denied nonservice-connected pension benefits. In May 2016, the Board found that entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) had been raised as part of the Veteran’s left wrist increased rating claim pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), and remanded the increased rating claim, TDIU, and nonservice-connected pension claim for further development. In April 2018, the Board remanded the claims for additional development, to include verification of the Veteran’s address. 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left wrist degenerative joint disease, status post-fracture and surgical intervention, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. 3. Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is remanded. In May 2016, the Board remanded the matters for further development, to include obtaining a new VA examination to assess the Veteran’s left wrist disability and information on the Veteran’s work history, income, net worth, and unreimbursed medical expenses. In June and October 2016 letters, VA requested the Veteran provide additional information and scheduled him for a VA examination. The Veteran did not respond to VA’s requests and failed to appear at his VA examination. In April 2018, the Board found that the Veteran’s address appeared to have changed and remanded the claims so that VA could verify the Veteran’s address and undertake previously ordered development. VA verified the Veteran’s address and in November 2018 and April 2020 letters, VA requested the Veteran provide additional information on his work history, income, net worth, and unreimbursed medical expenses, and scheduled him for a VA examination. To date, the Veteran has not responded to VA’s request for information and the Veteran cancelled his scheduled examination. The Board finds that a remand is warranted to afford the Veteran one additional opportunity to provide the requested information as to his work history, income, net worth, and unreimbursed medical expenses and to attend a VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected left wrist disability. The Board emphasizes that VA’s duty to assist is a two-way street and if the Veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the relevant evidence. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (noting the duty to assist is a two-way street that requires a claimant’s active participation in a claim for VA benefits). The Veteran is advised that when the RO requests evidence and the claimant does not respond, the claim essentially may be considered abandoned. See Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 452 (2000) (when the RO requests additional evidence and the appellant does not respond within one year, the claim is considered abandoned under 38 C.F.R. § 3.158); Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 521-22 (1996) (when an appellant does not furnish the requested evidence within the specified one year of the request, the RO is required, by VA regulations, to consider the claim abandoned). See also Jernigan v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 220, 229-30 (2012). If the Veteran no longer wishes to pursue these claims, he may formally withdraw them in writing at any time. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Request the Veteran complete and return VA Form 21-8940 (Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability). Advise the Veteran that if he does not timely submit such form, the claim may be further processed as abandoned under 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a). 2. Request the Veteran provide updated information on his countable income, net worth, and unreimbursed medical expenses for each year since October 2010 to the present. Advise the Veteran that if he does not timely submit such form, the claim may be further processed as abandoned under 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a). 3. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for private treatment received for his left wrist disability, if any. Make two requests for the authorized records from any identified provider, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected left wrist 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, to include any neurological symptoms. In so doing, the examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran’s statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 5. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence or under 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a), if applicable. If the claims remain denied or are dismissed as abandoned, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Owen, 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.