Citation Nr: 21063615 Decision Date: 10/14/21 Archive Date: 10/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-24 604 DATE: October 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a hernia disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1982 to November 1984. In May 2018, a video hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of that hearing is of record. In January 2018, the Board remanded the Veteran's claims to obtain VA examinations for the Veteran's back and hernia disorders. In July 2019, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. In October 2019, the case returned to the Board. The Board remanded the Veteran's claim for a hernia disorder in order to obtain an addendum opinion. In addition, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for TDIU for a referral for extraschedular consideration by the Director, VA Compensation Service. In May 2021, the case returned to the Board. The Board remanded the Veteran's hernia claim for an additional VA examination in order for a medical examiner to provide a more thorough analysis regarding the diagnosis of the abdominal disorder diastasis recti. In addition, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for TDIU because it was inextricably intertwined with the Veteran's claim on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a hernia disorder is remanded. In May 2021, the Board requested the VA examiner to provide a medical opinion as to whether the Veteran's diastasis recti is related to his in-service motor vehicle accident. The Board notes that an addendum opinion was obtained in May 2021. The Board acknowledges that the May 2021 addendum opinion included a description as to what the abdominal disorder diastasis recti is, but the examiner did not provide a thorough and well-reasoned opinion that addressed the Veteran's contention that his disability was related to his in-service motor vehicle accident. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is required to obtain a more complete medical opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran's disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate); Bloom v. West, 13 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) (a medical opinion without supporting clinical data or other rationale does not provide the required degree of medical certainty). 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability is remanded. The Veteran's claim for TDIU is intertwined with the issue currently remaining on appeal. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (where a claim is inextricably intertwined with another claim, the claims must be adjudicated together). Therefore, further consideration of the claim for TDIU must be deferred. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records from May 24, 2021, to the present. 2. Obtain an additional addendum opinion regarding the abdominal disorder of a diastasis recti. If an examination is deemed necessary by the examiner, one should be scheduled, and all necessary tests and studies should be completed. Following a review of the claims file, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's diastasis recti is related to his military service to include the in-service motor vehicle accident. The examiner's opinion must specifically address the Veteran's contention that his abdominal disorder, diagnosed as diastasis recti, is related to his in-service motor vehicle accident. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. 3. The RO should take any additional steps that it deems necessary to readjudicate the Veteran's claim for TDIU. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Rescan, 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.