Citation Nr: 21069089
Decision Date: 11/17/21	Archive Date: 11/17/21

DOCKET NO. 19-10 244
DATE: November 17, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to May 16, 2016 is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1965 to July 1967.

This matter has previously been before the Board, most recently in December 2020 and was denied.  The Veteran appealed this denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In a July 2021 Order, CAVC granted a Joint Motion to Remand (JMR), vacating the December 2020 decision and remanding the issue for further development. 

Entitlement to a TDIU prior to May 16, 2016 is remanded.

The claim is remanded to obtain a medical opinion that addresses the Veteran's capacity for sedentary work consistent with his work history and education.

The opinions during this period offer insufficient rationales to determine whether the Veteran is capable of sedentary employment prior to May 16, 2016.  The opinions additionally did not consider the Veteran's competent lay reports of associated symptomatology.  Finally, the Board notes that sedentary employment may not be appropriate given the Veteran's background, education, and skills.  See Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356, 359 (1991).  VA examiners did not consider the Veteran's education and prior work history in determining that the Veteran was capable of sedentary employment.  As such, a more thorough opinion as to the Veteran's employability is necessary on remand.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the impact of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his ability to perform sedentary types of employment.

In providing the above opinion, the examiner must consider the Veteran's education and work history but not his age or any nonservice connected disabilities. The examiner is informed that the Veteran has a high school education, and his most recent formal training was in industrial electricity in 1997, but he has no work experience in that field.

A full and complete rationale for any opinion expressed is required.  If an opinion cannot be provided, the examiner must indicate why and what, if any, additional information is needed. 

 

M.E. Larkin

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	P.S. McLeod

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.