Citation Nr: 21011207 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 667A DATE: March 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from August 1983 to July 1993, and the Army from March 2004 to June 2005. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2018. During the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to TDIU based upon his service-connected disabilities. In Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that VA must address the issue of entitlement to TDIU in increased rating claims when the issue of unemployability is raised expressly or by the record. The TDIU claim was remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in July 2020. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) denied the TDIU claim in a November 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). Subsequently, the RO undertook more development by obtaining multiple VA examinations and opinions for the Veteran’s TDIU claim. Then, in a December 2020 rating decision, the RO deferred the TDIU claim for more development regarding the Veteran’s service-connected right and left ankle disorders, specifically to include a new VA examination. Thus, a remand is required for the RO to complete the aforementioned development and adjudicate the claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate development to associate with the claims folder any outstanding VA treatment records and any outstanding VA examinations or opinions that are pertinent to the remanded TDIU issue. As noted above, the December 2020 rating decision indicated a pending VA examination for the service-connected ankle disorders, and this should be accomplished. 2. After the above development, and any additionally warranted development has been completed, readjudicate the issue of entitlement to TDIU. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and provide an opportunity to respond. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hetman 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.