Citation Nr: 21010262 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 06-26 854 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from August 1966 to July 1968. He also had additional unverified U.S. Army Reserve service. This appeal has a long procedural history. A Travel Board hearing was held in September 2016 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. Most recently, in October 2020, the Board remanded the currently appealed claim to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives, to the extent possible. The Board directed that the AOJ send the Veteran a VA Form 21 8940 (formal TDIU claim) in order to develop evidence relevant to his TDIU claim. This form was mailed to him and his service representative in November 2020. There is no record of a response. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999) (holding that another remand is not required under Stegall where the Board’s remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff’d, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002). The Board notes in this regard that the Court has held that “[t]he duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a Veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where [s]he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence.” See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The Veteran essentially contends that his service-connected disabilities, alone or in combination, preclude his employability and entitle him to a TDIU. The Board acknowledges that it remanded the TDIU claim to the AOJ in October 2020. Having reviewed the record evidence, and although the Board is reluctant to contribute to “the hamster-wheel reputation of Veterans law” by remanding this claim again, additional development is required before the underlying claim can be adjudicated on the merits. Cf. Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427, 434 (2006) (Lance, J., dissenting) (finding that repeated remands “perpetuate the hamster-wheel reputation of Veterans law”). The record evidence shows that service connection currently is in effect for PTSD, evaluated as 70 percent disabling effective November 8, 1999, and for a fracture of the fifth toe of the left foot and residuals of a laceration of the right ring finger, each evaluated as zero percent disabling effective August 15, 1994. The Veteran’s combined disability evaluation for compensation is 70 percent effective November 8, 1999; thus, he currently meets the schedular criteria for a TDIU. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) (2019). The record evidence does not contain sufficient information concerning the occupational impact of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. The Board notes in this regard that the most recent VA examinations for his service-connected PTSD and residuals of a laceration of the right ring finger occurred in 2017 and 2018 and only provided limited information concerning the functional impact of these disabilities. (It does not appear that the Veteran’s service-connected fracture of the fifth toe of the left foot has been examined for VA adjudication purposes in many years.) The December 2017 VA PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) examiner stated, “The Veteran is capable to maintain [sic] steady work, though his mood symptoms impact his ability to function effectively at times.” The Veteran subsequently asserted in a February 2020 letter describing his service-connected PTSD symptomatology that these symptoms have worsened considerably since his most recent examination. This persuasively suggests that the occupational impact of this disability has changed since December 2017. On VA hand and finger conditions DBQ in January 2018, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran reported that his service-connected residuals of a laceration of the right ring finger left him unable to use his right hand due to pain and numbness and he was unable to grip and hold things with his right hand. The Veteran also reported in January 2018 that he had been retired for 10 15 years and currently was not employed. There does not appear to be information currently associated with the claims file concerning the occupational impact of the Veteran’s service-connected fracture of the fifth toe of the left foot. Thus, the Board finds that, on remand, the AOJ should obtain opinions concerning the occupational impact of each of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. The AOJ also should obtain the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records. 2. Obtain an examination to determine the severity and functional and occupational impact of the Veteran’s PTSD. The examiner is asked to comment on the occupational impact of the Veteran’s PTSD. A rationale should be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. (Continued on the next page)   3. Readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.