Citation Nr: 21071864 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 15-24 349 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) from May 28, 2013 to January 20, 2016 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from January 1964 to January 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of December 2014 and May 2016 rating decisions issued by a regional office (hereinafter agency of original jurisdiction or AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Board previously remanded this matter to the AOJ for further development in April 2019 and April 2021. This case has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(3). 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 1. Entitlement to a TDIU from May 28, 2013 to January 20, 2016 is remanded. As noted above, the Board remanded this issue in April 2021 in order to obtain medical opinions regarding the effects of the Veteran's service-connected depression, bilateral hearing loss, eczema and tinnitus on his ability to find and maintain gainful employment from May 28, 2013 through January 21, 2016, the current effective date of his entitlement to a TDIU. The Board noted that the Veteran was incarcerated until November 2011 but had previously worked as a traffic controller for the state of Wyoming from 2002 to 2003 as well as a truck driver for the Tennessee Department of Corrections. Due to the apparent unemployment of the Veteran but limited information in the claims file pertaining to this period, the Board instructed the AOJ to schedule the Veteran for VA examinations with appropriate physicians and obtain retrospective opinions. Although the Board gave the AOJ the option of substituting a telehealth interview or records review if an in-person examination was not feasible, it appears from the record that the AOJ did not attempt to contact the Veteran regarding an in-person or telehealth interview before obtaining records review opinions. The AOJ solicited these opinions from three different VA examiners. Although the VA skin examiner provided an opinion with regard to the effect of the Veteran's service-connected eczema on his ability to find and maintain gainful employment during the relevant period, both the VA psychologist and audiologist stated that it was not possible to provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation due to a lack of information. In this case, the Board finds that the AOJ should have attempted to schedule the Veteran for in-person or telehealth interviews so that the examiners could solicit relevant information directly from the Veteran. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). As such, remand in order to obtain adequate opinions with regard to the Veteran's service-connected hearing loss and psychiatric disorders is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran notice of the evidence and information necessary to substantiate his claim for a TDIU from May 28, 2013 to January 20, 2016. 2. Forward the Veteran's claims file to appropriate VA physicians and schedule the Veteran for in-person VA examinations or telehealth interviews with such physicians for in order to ascertain the effect his service-connected bilateral hearing loss and psychiatric disabilities have on his ability to secure and follow substantial gainful employment from May 28, 2013 to January 20, 2016. The VA examiners should comment on the functional effect of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities have his ability to work (disregarding the effects of any disabilities that are not service connected) during the period from May 28, 2013 to January 20, 2016 and indicate whether the functions or types of employment of which he would be capable would be consistent with his past vocational experience. If, based on the available records, the examiners are unable to provide the requested opinions, they should attempt to solicit sufficient information directly from the Veteran. A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion rendered. If the examiners are still unable to provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, they should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. C. Schumacher, 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.