Citation Nr: 21003164
Decision Date: 01/19/21	Archive Date: 01/19/21

DOCKET NO. 17-66 886
DATE: January 19, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to March 14, 2017 is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1960 to June 1964.  This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision.

This matter was previously before the Board in December 2018, when entitlement to TDIU was denied.  The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and in July 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the December 2018 denial and remanding the matter to the Board for further consideration.

The Board notes that since the December 2018 denial of entitlement to TDIU, the Veteran has been granted a 100 percent evaluation for his service-connected Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia, effective March 14, 2017.  However, the Veteran’s claim for TDIU was submitted in December 2016, so the period on appeal extends prior to the current effective date of the Veteran’s total rating and the issue of entitlement to TDIU remains on appeal for the period prior to March 14, 2017.

As stated in the July 2020 JMR, new evidence was received after a November 2017 statement of the case (SOC) was issued, but before the Board issued its December 2018 denial.  This evidence included a VA examination from August 2018.  When VA develops new evidence that is relevant to an appeal, it must be referred to the AOJ for initial review and the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).  38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31(b), 19.37(a).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Review the claims file and, after conducting any additional indicated development, issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) regarding the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), to include on an extraschedular basis. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31.

 

 

M. HYLAND

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Pitman, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.