Citation Nr: 21009423 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-29 977 DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for a mental disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty in the U.S. Navy from March 1967 to March 1971. The issue is on appeal from a February 2020 rating decision. In February 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request form opting into the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). He selected the Direct Review lane. As explained in the VA Form 10182, “direct review” means that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (Board) decision must be based upon the evidence of record at the time of the prior decision, with no evidence submission or hearing request. As such, the Board has considered only the evidence of record at the time of the February 2020 decision. In an April 2020 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s claims for entitlement to an increased rating of a mental disorder and entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran appealed the April 2020 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2020, the Court vacated the Board’s April 2020 decision and remanded the issues for action consistent with a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for a mental disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded Although the Bord regrets additional delay, the matters must be remanded to correct pre-decisional duty to assist errors. The Board has been directed to undertake action consistent with the May 2020 JMPR. The Board interprets the JMPR to require that VA obtain an addendum medical opinion clarifying a remark proffered by the VA examiner who conducted the July 2017 examination of the Veteran’s mental disorder. Specifically, the July 2017 examiner noted “[history] does not support profound work-related problems. Ongoing ETOH use, physical problems (neck injury and related pain) may be more limited regarding functional occupational capacity.” The Board finds the remark confusing and needs further clarification as to what the examiner was attempting to convey with his opinion, particularly the latter half. For example, was the examiner explaining that the Veteran’s ongoing alcohol abuse and physical disabilities caused more functional occupational capacity than his mental disorder? Generally, if VA has provided an examination, VA must ensure that exam is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a clarification addendum opinion from the same examiner who conducted the July 2017 VA examination for the Veteran’s mental disorder. The examiner is asked to clarify the meaning behind his statement “[history] does not support profound work-related problems. Ongoing ETOH use, physical problems (neck injury and related pain) may be more limited regarding functional occupational capacity.” L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Lee 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.