Citation Nr: 21006520 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-35 225 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from August 1960 to June 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record and has been reviewed. By way of procedural background, this matter was previously before the Board in April 2018 and April 2019. In its April 2018 decision, the Board granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and an acquired psychiatric disability and remanded the issue of entitlement to a TDIU as inextricably intertwined with the assignment of disability ratings for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss and acquired psychiatric disability. In its April 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran then appealed the Board’s April 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) which, by way of a February 2020 Order, granted the parties’ February 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacated the Board’s April 2019 decision, and remanded the matter to the Board for further action consistent with the JMR. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) and 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). 1. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. In this matter, the Veteran does not meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU as he is in receipt of ¬¬¬¬a 50 percent disability rating for an acquired psychiatric disability, a 20 percent disability rating for bilateral hearing loss, and a 10 percent disability rating for tinnitus, which results in a combined disability rating of 60 percent. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). It is the policy of VA that all Veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of a service-connected disability shall be rated totally disabled and that Veterans who fail to meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU rating shall be considered for such a rating on an extra-schedular basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Although the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s representative’s arguments to the contrary, the Board may not award a TDIU on an extraschedular basis in the first instance. See December 2020 Appellate Brief; see also Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1, 10 (2001). Rather, the Board must determine if the evidence warrants referral to the Director of Compensation and Pension Service for consideration of an extraschedular TDIU. Here, the Board finds that the evidence suggests that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities impact his ability to work, and therefore warrants referral for extraschedular consideration. Notably, in a November 2020 private “Unemployability Assessment,” T.D., a licensed vocational expert, noted that the Veteran was service-connected for an acquired psychiatric disability, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus, and wrote, “It is my professional opinion, based on my review of [the Veteran’s] medical records, education, and vocational history that the combination of these impairments has prevented him from participating in gainful employment since August 2013.” Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that referral for extraschedular consideration is warranted. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: Refer the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU to the Director of Compensation and Pension Service for consideration of an extraschedular TDIU, and then readjudicate the remanded claim. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. M. Gill, 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.