Citation Nr: 21074946 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 15-29 681 DATE: December 16, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities for the purpose of accrued benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from July 1970 to January 1972 and from August 1973 to August 1976. He died in January 2016. The appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). At the time of the Veteran's death, the claim listed above was pending. Following the Veteran's death, the appellant submitted a request for substitution as to the pending claim. See February 2016 VA Form 21-534EZ. In October 2016, the appellant was notified that she had been accepted as a substitute claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010 (e). Since there has been a proper substitution of the appellant as the claimant, the Board will proceed. On his substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing on the aforementioned claim. However, in statements submitted in February 2017, the appellant withdrew the hearing request. Under 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (e), a request for a hearing may be withdrawn by an appellant at any time before the hearing. Thus, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn and the Board will proceed with this claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (e). The appellant contends that the Veteran was entitled to a TDIU as a result of his service-connected disabilities. A TDIU claim, either expressly raised by a veteran or reasonably raised by the record, involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability and is part of the claim for an increased rating. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In January 2012, the Veteran raised the issue of a TDIU as part of his increased rating claims for his service-connected disabilities. During the period on appeal, service connection was in effect for the following disabilities: degenerative disc and joint disease of the lumbar spine, with a 40 percent rating assigned; radiculopathy, left lower extremity associated with degenerative disc and joint disease of the lumbar spine, with a 20 percent rating assigned; radiculopathy, right lower extremity associated with degenerative disc and joint disease of the lumbar spine, with a 20 percent rating assigned; and gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) with a 10 percent rating assigned. The Board finds that the schedular criteria for TDIU have been met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). However, additional information is necessary to determine the Veteran's employment status during the appeal period. The Board observes that the Veteran's employment history is unclear from the record. Specifically, a TDIU application filed in March 2009 specified that his last date of employment was June 2002. However, a review of the record reveals that he was last employed in 2010 as a cement truck driver. In addition, while he did not provide his full employment history on his TDIU application, the Veteran provided the name and address of his last previous employer. However, the record does not contain any verification of the Veteran's employment dates or reason for his termination. In order to fairly adjudicate this claim, further development is necessary to clarify the Veteran's employment history. Although the Board notes that "the duty to assist is not always a one-way street," see Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991), a remand is required for the RO to obtain and verify the Veteran's employment history to decide the claim of entitlement to a TDIU. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Further develop the Veteran's claim for a TDIU, to include obtaining any relevant employment history, employment verification and reason for termination. 2. Conduct any additional development suggested as a result of any evidence received from the development directed above. Saudiee Brown Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.T. Massey, 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.