Citation Nr: 21067339 Decision Date: 11/04/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 10-26 437 DATE: November 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1975 to July 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a November 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing in July 2015 before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer with the Board. A transcript of this hearing is of record. The Veteran was notified that he is entitled to another hearing and did not elect to have another hearing. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (c). Accordingly, the Board will proceed without further delay. The Board denied this claim in September 2020, and the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2021, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) in which the parties agreed to vacate the TDIU decision and remand the matter to the Board. Although the Board regrets additional delay, remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion. In March 2017, September 2017, and August 2018, VA examiners opined that the Veteran was unable to walk, stand, lift, carry, or move heavy objects. These examiners also opined that the Veteran is unable to perform sedentary employment but did not explain how his service-connected foot and ankle disabilities impact his ability to perform sedentary work. A December 2019 VA examiner stated that he is limited to sedentary work only but also did not provide a rationale for this opinion. Accordingly, remand is needed to obtain an opinion with rationale regarding the impact of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his ability to work. The examiner should address not only the foot and ankle conditions, but also his hearing loss, tinnitus, and scar. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's updated VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible) to evaluate the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. The examiner should elicit from the Veteran his complete educational, vocational, and employment history and should note his complaints regarding the impact of his service-connected disabilities on his employment. After a full examination and review of the claims file, the examiner should identify all limitations imposed on the Veteran as a consequence of his service-connected plantar fasciitis, right ankle Achilles tendinitis, right ankle Achilles tendinitis, hearing loss, tinnitus, and left foot scar. The examiner is asked to comment on and describe the functional impairment caused solely by the service-connected disabilities as it pertains to the Veteran's ability to function in an occupational environment. The opinion need not state whether the Veteran's disabilities prevent him from obtaining or maintaining substantially gainful employment, or whether the Veteran is capable of sedentary employment. Rather, the examiner should discuss how and to what extent the Veteran's service-connected disabilities affect his ability to perform occupational tasks. The examiner should, for instance, describe the limitations and restrictions imposed by his service-connected conditions with respect to factors such as her ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, pull, bend, and maintain energy and focus for up to eight hours per day, and in terms of whether such disabilities might require absences from work and/or breaks from work. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached, citing the objective medical findings leading to the conclusions. If any opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Hofmeister 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.