Citation Nr: 21008703 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 12-24 775 DATE: February 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is moot and therefore dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 30 percent for ureterolithiasis with hematuria and hypertension is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has been awarded a 100 percent schedular evaluation for his service-connected disabilities at all times relevant to the Veteran’s TDIU appeal; therefore, the claim for TDIU is moot. CONCLUSION OF LAW The issue of entitlement to TDIU is moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.14, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1977 to June 1980. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The claims were most recently remanded by the Board in September 2020. 1. Entitlement to a TDIU The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has recognized that a 100 percent rating under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities means that a Veteran is totally disabled. Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443, 446 (1994), citing Swan v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 20, 22 (1990). Thus, if VA has found a veteran to be totally disabled as a result of a particular service-connected disability, or combination of disabilities pursuant to the rating schedule, there is no need, and no authority, to otherwise rate that Veteran totally disabled on any other basis. See Herlehy v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 33, 35 (2001) (finding a request for TDIU moot where 100 percent schedular rating was awarded for the same period). The Veteran filed a claim for a TDIU in January 2020. However, the Veteran had been in receipt of a 100 percent combined rating for his service-connected disabilities since June 2018. As entitlement to a TDIU is a form of increased rating claim, the effective date rules for increased compensation claims apply. See Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413, 420-21 (1999); Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 451-52 (2000). The effective date of a TDIU shall be the later of either the date of receipt of claim, or the date entitlement arose. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o). An effective date for a claim for increase may also be granted prior to the date of claim if it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred within one year from the date of claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(3); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (o). As the Veteran was already 100 percent disabled as a result of his service-connected disabilities from June 6, 2018, and as this effective date would encompass the entire appellate period for the Veteran’s TDIU claim, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is moot. Accordingly, the claim for TDIU is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 30 percent for ureterolithiasis with hematuria and hypertension is remanded. In the September 2020 remand, the Board explained that there had not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding this issue. The Board instructed that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) must address whether a separate evaluation under Diagnostic Code 7101 was warranted for the Veteran’s hypertension associated with his kidney disability. The AOJ issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in September 2020, which stated that a noncompensable evaluation for hypertension was assigned. However, the most recent Rating Decision Codesheet currently included in the claims file, dated September 29, 2020, does not show that a separate rating was issued for hypertension. Additionally, there is no mention in the SSOC of the effective date of the separate award for hypertension. Therefore, remand is required for the AOJ to issue an additional SSOC and Rating Decision Codesheet that reflects both the award of and effective date for the separate rating for hypertension. (Continued on the next page)   The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Issue a SSOC and Rating Decision Codesheet that reflects the award of and effective date for a separate rating for hypertension. Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Miller, 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.