Citation Nr: 21004541
Decision Date: 01/27/21	Archive Date: 01/27/21

DOCKET NO. 09-36 867
DATE: January 27, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to October 6, 2014, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from February 1969 to February 1971.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) by order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter “the Court”) in July 2020, which granted a joint motion for remand (JMR) vacating a October 2019 Board decision and remanded the issue on appeal for additional development.  The Court previously granted a JMR in April 2019 vacating a November 2017 Board decision.  The matter initially arose from an April 2015 rating decision by the Oakland, California, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

1. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to October 6, 2014, is remanded.

In its July 2020 order the Court found that the Board failed to comply with the terms of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1305, failed to consider relevant evidence, and failed to comply with the Court’s prior remand.  It was specifically noted that VA vocational rehabilitation records, including records indicating the Veteran’s tinnitus required him to avoid working in noisy environments, were added to the record subsequent to the last review of the claim by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) and that the prior decision failed to adequately consider a May 2017 medical opinion indicating that during the year 2013 and 2014 the Veteran’s situation had worsened significantly. A supplemental statement of the case is necessary to address this evidence.  

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

After any additionally indicated development has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal based upon the evidence added to the record since the July 2017 supplemental statement of the case.  If the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond.  If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review.

 

 

MICHAEL A. HERMAN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Douglas

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.