Citation Nr: 21076383 Decision Date: 12/23/21 Archive Date: 12/23/21 DOCKET NO. 15-33 994 DATE: December 23, 2021 ORDER A rating higher than 30 percent for right reverse total shoulder arthroplasty previously rated as degenerative joint disease (hereinafter right shoulder disability) from November 1, 2015 is denied. A total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran, without good cause, failed to report for the scheduled VA examination to decide his increased rating claim and entitlement to TDIU. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A rating higher than 30 percent for right shoulder disability from November 1, 2015 is denied based on failure to report for a scheduled VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). 2. A TDIU is denied based on failure to report for a scheduled VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from November 1979 to May 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018 and April 2020, the Board remanded this matter for further development. Right Shoulder TDIU In April 2020, the Board remanded this matter for additional development, to include a VA examination. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination; however, he cancelled the examination and provided no reason for his cancellation. Neither the Veteran nor his representative have presented good cause for his failure to appear. VA regulations provide that, when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with a claim for an increased rating, the claim shall be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). Regarding the claim for a TDIU, a TDIU is considered a rating, not a disability. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 248 (2010). Entitlement to a TDIU was denied most recently in an August 2015 statement of the case. In August 2015, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a TDIU. In its April 2020 remand, the Board found a claim for TDIU to be raised by the record. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). As the TDIU stems from the claim for a higher rating, it is not an original claim for increase. As there has been no attempt on the Veteran's part to present good cause for his failure to report and the record indicates that he cancelled his scheduled examination with no explanation, a remand to reschedule a VA examination is not warranted. In short, the preponderance of the evidence is against a showing of good cause. As the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held "[t]he duty to assist in the development and adjudication of a claim is not a one-way street." Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 522 (1996). "If a [claimant] wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991); see also Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480, 483 (1992). The Board finds that the Veteran's increased rating claim and TDIU cannot be established without an examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Where, as here, the regulation is dispositive, the claim for a higher rating and TDIU must be denied because of lack of entitlement under the law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.