Citation Nr: 21063016 Decision Date: 10/12/21 Archive Date: 10/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-05 843A DATE: October 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected residuals, herniated nucleus pulposus, status post laminectomies is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1973 to June 1976. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a January 2020 decision, the Board denied the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected residuals, herniated nucleus pulposus, status post laminectomies. Subsequently, the Veteran appealed the January 2020 Board decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand, and it vacated and remanded the January 2020 Board decision for further development. The Court also instructed that the Board, upon remand, adequately address the Veteran's entitlement to a TDIU and provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination. Thus, the Board has also included the issue of entitlement to a TDIU as an issue on appeal. See also Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected residuals, herniated nucleus pulposus, status post laminectomies is remanded. In August 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand and vacated and remanded the January 2020 Board decision that denied an increased rating for service-connected residuals, herniated nucleus pulposus, status post laminectomies. The Court held that a remand was warranted because the Board did not adequately discuss if the VA examination reports were adequate for rating purposes, to include satisfying the directives of Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 32 (2017). DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 206 (1995); Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 43-44 (2011); Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45. In September 2021, the Veteran filed a VA Form 21-8940 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. In response, the RO requested that a VA examination be scheduled for the Veteran for his back disability. Thus, it appears that the RO is still developing the Veteran's claim, and the results of the future scheduled VA examination will impact the rating of the issue on appeal. Thus, the Board finds that a decision on the issue on appeal should be deferred until all development has been completed. Also, the Veteran indicated that he was receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, the Veteran's SSA records are not of record. Thus, on remand, the RO should also obtain the Veteran's SSA medical records. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The claim for entitlement to a TDIU is intertwined with the claim for an increased rating for residuals, herniated nucleus pulposus, status post laminectomies that is being remanded herein; accordingly, it must also be remanded. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that issues are inextricably intertwined and must be considered together when a decision concerning one could have a significant impact on the other). Additionally, the RO should obtain a completed VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Verification. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all SSA medical records relating to the Veteran's back disability and associate with the claims file. 2. Obtain a completed VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Verification, for the Veteran's full-time employment as a contract administrator and part-time employment as a van driver. 3. Once all necessary development has been completed, to include development for the increased rating claim for the Veteran's back disability and the claim for a TDIU, readjudicate the claims. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Crawford, 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.