Citation Nr: 21062157 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 12-08 252 DATE: October 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent prior to April 9, 2015; 50 percent from April 9, 2015 through December 19, 2019; and in excess of 70 percent from December 20, 2019, for a right wrist disability, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1978 to June 1981. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2017, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims folder. This matter was previously before the Board on several occasions, and most recently in December 2020, when it was remanded for development. It now returns to the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent prior to April 9, 2015; 50 percent from April 9, 2015 through December 19, 2019; and in excess of 70 percent from December 20, 2019 for a right wrist disability is remanded. Although the additional delay is regrettable, the Board finds a remand necessary in order to afford the Veteran an adequate VA medical opinion with respect to the nature and severity of his wrist disability during the period herein on appeal. The prior Board remand charged a VA examiner with clarifying whether the Veteran's right wrist disability conferred symptoms so disabling as to render it tantamount to loss of use of the right hand. The question appeared to have been answered in the affirmative in July 2020 by a VA examiner, but without any indication as to retroactive application of that assessment. The March 2021 VA examiner charged with rendering an opinion offered a conclusory explanation that the Veteran's July 2011 right wrist fusion "did not [cause him to] lose the use of his arm; the fusion resulted in lost [range of motion,] but not lost use." Particularly in light of the July 2020 opinion and the Veteran's credible lay statements regarding the gravity of his symptoms throughout the appeal period, the March 2021 opinion is wanting, and the matter must be remanded for a new, thoroughly reasoned and explained medical opinion. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. Because a decision on the claim for increase could significantly impact a decision on the TDIU issue, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the TDIU claim is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the medical file to a VA examiner who has not yet participated in this case. The examiner is requested to furnish a retrospective opinion as to the nature and severity of the Veteran's degenerative arthritis of the right wrist for the period prior to December 20, 2019. The examiner should review the entire claims folder. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran's right wrist degenerative arthritis was tantamount to the loss of use of his right hand at any time prior to December 20, 2019. If so, the examiner should identify the closest date of which the Veteran lost use of his right hand. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions expressed. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she should explain why this is so. 2. The AOJ should ensure that the examination report complies with this remand and the question presented in this request. If the report is insufficient, it must be returned to the examiner for necessary corrective action, as appropriate. 3. Then, readjudicate the claims, to include the Veteran's claim of entitlement to TDIU. If any claim remains denied, return it to the Board for appellate review. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sahraie, 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.