Citation Nr: 21070541 Decision Date: 11/24/21 Archive Date: 11/24/21 DOCKET NO. 18-43 957 DATE: November 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for residuals of a pilonidal cyst is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a pilonidal cyst scar is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for a painful and unstable pilonidal cyst scar is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on housebound status, other than from March 10, 2014 to April 30, 2014, December 5, 2014 to January 31, 2015, and August 16, 2016 to December 31, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 2003 to March 2007. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2015 and July 2018 rating decisions of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an August 2021 rating decision, both periods of a temporary total rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 for convalescence following the pilonidal cyst drainage were granted. This represents a full grant of the benefits sought, and the issue is no longer in appellate status. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The record contains no indication that the Veteran has disagreed with the effective date assigned, thus, those matters are not in appellate status. See Grantham, 114 F. 3d at 1158 (holding that a separate notice of disagreement must be filed to initiate appellate review of "downstream" elements such as the disability rating or effective date assigned). This appeal has been advanced on the docket. 38 U.S.C. § 7107; 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 1. Increased ratings for residuals of a pilonidal cyst and pilonidal cyst scars. First, remand is required to comply with the February 2021 remand directives. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. The February 2021 remand directives instructed the examiner to determine all manifestations and functional impact of pilonidal cyst and scars. The Veteran received a May 2021 VA examination. The examiner noted scars caused limitation of function (to include limitation of motion). The examiner stated the Veteran was unable to sit for any activities and noted limited activities. Additionally, the examiner stated the Veteran had decreased ability in performing activities that require sitting. The scars disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) stated a separate DBQ should be completed for corresponding limitation of motion. An additional DBQ was not completed. Notably, an August 2021 VA treatment record noted that his cyst caused pain on sitting. Accordingly, remand is required to adequately address any limitation of motion from pilonidal cyst and scars. SMC housebound Remand is required for the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) must furnish the Veteran and his representative with an SSOC if the AOJ receives additional, pertinent evidence after an SOC or the most recent SSOC has been issued and before the appeal is certified to the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (2019). Furthermore, any pertinent evidence submitted by a claimant or his or her representative after an appeal is certified to the Board must be referred to the AOJ, unless such evidence is accompanied by a waiver of consideration by the AOJ, or the Board determines that the benefit(s) to which the evidence relates may be fully allowed on appeal without such referral. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (2019); Disabled American Veterans v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The appeal was remanded in February 2021. In an August 2021 rating decision, the RO granted SMC based on housebound status from March 10, 2014 to April 30, 2014, December 5, 2014 to January 31, 2015, and August 16, 2016 to December 31, 2016. This is does not cover the entire period on appeal and is considered a partial grant of the issue on appeal. The July 2021 SSOC does not address SMC. Accordingly, remand is required for the issuance of an SSOC. 2. TDIU Lastly, remand is required because entitlement to TDIU is inextricably interwined with the pending increased rating claims. See 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). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected pilonidal cyst and pilonidal cyst scars. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must also complete any additional DBQs to address limitation of motion caused by pilonidal cyst and/ or pilonidal cyst scars. If the examiner is unable to provide range of motion, the examiner must provide a full description of limitation of function caused by pilonidal cyst and/ or pilonidal cyst scars. 2. The AOJ must readjudicate the issues on appeal considering all pertinent evidence and legal authority. If the disposition remains unfavorable, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and his attorney with an SSOC and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. This SSOC must address the relevant laws and regulations applicable for: Entitlement to SMC based on housebound status, other than from March 10, 2014 to April 30, 2014, December 5, 2014 to January 31, 2015, and August 16, 2016 to December 31, 2016. David Gratz Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Bruton, C 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.