Citation Nr: A21018917 Decision Date: 11/29/21 Archive Date: 11/29/21 DOCKET NO. 210405-150277 DATE: November 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1991 to April 1991, with additional periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). This decision has been written consistent with the new Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2020 rating decision that, inter alia, denied entitlement to a TDIU. In an April 2021 decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182), the Veteran timely appealed the April 2020 rating decision and requested a Board hearing. In August 2021, the Veteran's attorney notified VA that the Veteran wished to cancel her Board hearing. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Under the AMA, the Board must remand a claim to correct an error by the AOJ to satisfy its duty to assist the Veteran under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, if the error occurred prior to the AOJ decision on appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (f)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 20.802 (a). The Board may also remand a claim to correct any other AOJ error "in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating" the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802 (a). In this case, in the January 2020 VA back examination report, the Veteran reported functional impairment of her back, stating that she has difficulty walking. Regarding the functional impact of her back condition, the examiner opined that it impacted her ability to work and stated that the Veteran's "inability to perform any employment that involves prolonged standing, walking, carrying cannot be distinguished amongst her multiple health issues in her advanced age." The examiner's opinion is inadequate as he failed to specifically consider and discuss the effects of the Veteran's service-connected back disability on her ability to work; instead, he merely commingled the Veteran's service-connected disability together with her advanced age and non-service-connected health issues. The examiner failed to identify why an opinion could not reasonably be determined from the available medical evidence. Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2011). This is not permissible. See Howell v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 535, 540 (2006) (the Board erred in failing to discuss or assess the separate effects of claimant's service-connected and non-service-connected disabilities and whether, standing alone, his service-connected disabilities warranted an award). The Board notes that the Veteran stated in an August 2021 certification that she was forced to stop working as a registered nurse 20 years ago due in part to her service-connected right hip and back issues. She also indicated that she cannot lift anything more than a pound or two, cannot stand for 8-12 hours (which is a typical nursing shift), and the extensive pain related to her back and right hip issues prevents her from focusing on complicated tasks. Since the above was a pre-decisional duty to assist error, a remand of the Veteran's claim for a TDIU is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (f)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for appropriate examination(s) to determine the impact of her service-connected disabilities upon her occupational functioning. Based on any examination findings and the Veteran's documented medical history and lay assertions, the examiner should identify any functional impairments due to her service-connected disabilities, alone, and discuss the effects of these disabilities on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If the clinician is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the clinician offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kovacs, Associate 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.