Citation Nr: 21006706 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 11-14 218 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for dermatophytosis of the hands and feet is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected dermatophytosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1954 to March 1957. The Veteran died in September 2017 during the pendency of this appeal. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse, who has been substituted as the claimant for the purposes of processing the appeal to completion. See May 2020 VA correspondence. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2013, the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Subsequently, in June 2016, the Board remanded the matter for an additional hearing as per the Veteran’s request. Accordingly, in August 2016, the Veteran testified at another hearing before the undersigned VLJ. At the August 2016 hearing, the Veteran waived his right to an additional hearing before a third VLJ with respect to the claims addressed herein. Transcripts of the proceedings are associated with the claims file. In December 2016, the Board remanded the matter for further development, to include referral for extraschedular consideration. The Board notes that when two hearings have been held on the same issue or issues before different VLJs, the Board must assign the case to a panel of not less than three VLJs to render a decision. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7102. When this occurs, the Veteran must be afforded the opportunity to present testimony before the third VLJ assigned to panel. See Arneson v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 379 (2011). As acknowledged above, the Veteran was afforded two Board hearings with two different VLJs, one of whom is the undersigned VLJ. Notably, the VLJ who conducted the May 2013 hearing retired and is no longer at the Board. Thus, as only one of the VLJs who took testimony on these issues is currently employed by the Board, a panel decision is no longer required. Accordingly, the case will be decided by only the undersigned VLJ. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s December 2016 remand directives regarding the issue of an increased rating for dermatophytosis. Specifically, the Board remanded the claim for referral for extraschedular consideration. To date, there is no indication that the claim was referred for extraschedular consideration. Accordingly, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Moreover, as the claim for a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim for an increased rating, consideration of the claim for a TDIU must be deferred pending resolution of the increased rating claim. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (where a claim is inextricably intertwined with another claim, the claims must be adjudicated together). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Refer the claim for an increased rating for dermatophytosis of the hands and feet for extraschedular consideration in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). Any responses received in regard to extraschedular consideration must be included in the claims file. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Robinson, 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.