Citation Nr: 21075882 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 400 DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from February 1987 to April 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in March 2013 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in October 2018 for additional development. It is now before the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability is remanded. In the previous Board remand, the Board requested that an appropriate VA clinician opine as to the functional impact of the side effects of the Veteran's medication for his service connected disabilities. The examiner was specifically asked to describe in detail any memory, mood, sleep, or physical impairments experienced by the Veteran due to his medications. This request arises from multiple notations in the record reporting issues with memory loss, focus, and sleep impairment. An August 2019 VA medical opinion was submitted in an attempt to satisfy Board remand directives, however, for the following reasons, this medical opinion is inadequate. In the addendum opinion, the clinician listed the medications the Veteran is taking for his service connected disabilities and merely stated that most would not be used in combination, and many would contain a warning not to use heavy machinery, but it would not preclude sedentary employment. The Board finds this opinion to be conclusory as it did not address the side effects experienced by the Veteran, as noted in the record, and did not provide detailed reasoning as to why sedentary employment would be possible under this particular set of facts. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives regarding the issue of the effect of the Veteran's medications on employment. Another remand is required. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted a private physician's statement regarding his inability to work. That statement, however, noted numerous disabilities for which the Veteran is not service-connected. As a TDIU must be based solely on the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, this opinion is not a sufficient basis on which to grant the claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate VA clinician to obtain an addendum VA medical opinion addressing the functional impact of any side effects the Veteran experiences from the medications taken for his service-connected disabilities. Specifically, the examiner is asked to describe in detail any memory (short-or long-term), mood, sleep or physical (i.e. on driving) impairments experienced by the Veteran as a result of his medications taken for service-connected disabilities. In making a determination, the examiner should note that the Veteran has been found to take the following prescriptions for his service-connected disabilities, at various points in time, and at various doses and frequencies, since approximately June 2011: Vicodin, Norco, Gabapentin, Tramadol, Cyclobenzaprine, Naproxen, Amrix, Nucynta, Savella, Tylenol #3, Flexeril, Amitriptyline, Oxycodone. The examiner is requested to provide a complete rationale for any opinion expressed. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner 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. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. K. Hall, 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.