Citation Nr: 21066202 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 13-26 885 DATE: October 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1969 to August 1971. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in August 2017 and October 2019. In August 2017, the Board found that the matter of entitlement to TDIU was raised by the record as part of a claim for an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss, see Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), and remanded both issues for further development. (The increased rating claim is no longer on appeal.) In October 2019, the Board remanded these two claims again; the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) was instructed to, among other things, obtain a new examination to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran's hearing loss and describe its impact on his ability to work. In July 2020, the Board denied the claim for a TDIU. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In April 2021, the Court issued an Order granting a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacating and remanding the Board's denial of a TDIU. The parties to the JMPR agreed that the Board had failed to ensure that the RO satisfied its duty to assist the Veteran. Specifically, the Board had erroneously relied on the December 2019 VA examination, despite the inadequacy of the examination report. VA has a duty to ensure that any medical examination or opinion it provides is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). A medical opinion is adequate where it is based upon consideration of the full medical history and describes a disability in sufficient detail so that the Board's evaluation will be fully informed. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123 (2007). The December 2019 examiner opined that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus caused him no work restrictions when he properly used hearing aids, but, per the JMPR, "provided no context or rationale for this finding and failed to address evidence reflecting Appellant's difficulties with using his hearing aids because of his tinnitus symptoms." The parties went on to say that "remand for a new examination or opinion addressing Appellant's ability to tolerate hearing aids and the functional limitations caused by his tinnitus symptoms is warranted." The Veteran argued in his September 2021 brief that the Board should grant his TDIU claim outright. However, the Board finds that the record currently does not contain sufficient evidence to support a full grant of benefits sought. The Board will therefore follow the recommendation of the JMPR, and remand to obtain a new examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an examination from an appropriate clinician in connection with the claim for a TDIU. The ultimate purpose of the examination is to ascertain whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone would have rendered him unable to maintain substantially gainful employment at any time during the period on appeal. If appropriate, any studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner must review the complete claims file and certify that they have done so. The examiner should elicit and set forth the pertinent facts regarding the Veteran's medical history, education and employment history, day-to-day functioning, and industrial capacity throughout the period on appeal. Please review and comment on the impact of the Veteran's tinnitus affects his ability to tolerate hearing aids, and in turn, how his (in)ability to tolerate hearing aids impacts his ability to perform employment duties. The examiner should also address the VA Form 21-4192 submitted in December 2019 by the Veteran's former employer, stating that the Veteran's hearing loss made him unable to understand customers, "which led to confusion and mistakes." A written copy of the report should be associated with the claims file. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Shermila Sundquist 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.