Citation Nr: 21011521 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-02 695 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for coronary artery disease (CAD), status post myocardial infarction with stent placement from the period of December 5, 2012 to May 29, 2019 is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to May 30, 2019 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1969 to April 1971. This matter was initially before the Board in February 2020, where it was remanded for additional development. Specifically, the Board concluded that the Veteran should be afforded a retrospective opinion to determine whether the Veteran’s CAD warrants a higher rating from the period of December 5, 2012 to May 29, 2019. Additionally, the Veteran’s TDIU claim was remanded for AOJ consideration, as he did not meet the schedular requirement prior to May 29, 2019. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for CAD, status post myocardial infarction with stent placement from the period of December 5, 2012 to May 29, 2019 is remanded. The Board finds that the matter must be remanded as there has not been substantial compliance with the February 2020 remand directives. In a July 2020 rating decision, the Veteran’s TDIU and Dependents’ Educational Assistance claims were granted, effective May 29, 2019. Additionally, the Veteran’s increased rating for CAD was granted, as 60 percent disabling, effective May 29, 2019. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination (see September, 8, 2020 Exam Request) and in October 2020, the Veteran called to state that he was satisfied with outcome of the appeal based on the July 2020 rating decision. He also requested to cancel his upcoming VA examination. See October 13, 2020 Exam Request Modification. In an October 2020 supplemental statement of the case, the Veteran’s remanded claims were denied and returned to the Board for appellate consideration. While the Board acknowledges that the Veteran cancelled his VA examination, the examination that was requested in the February 2020 Board decision did not require the Veteran to be present for the exam. Rather, it was a retrospective opinion, where the examiner was required to review his claims folder and based on the information provided, determine whether a workload capacity of 3 METs but not greater than 5 METs has been present prior to May 30, 2019. The Board also notes that the Veteran did not withdraw his appeal. In light of the discussion above, the matter is remanded to obtain an opinion on his increased rating claim for CAD for the relevant period on appeal. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to May 30, 2019 is remanded. Similarly, the Veteran’s TDIU prior to May 30, 2019 is remanded. Prior to May 29, 2019, the Veteran did not meet the schedular requirement. The remanded increased rating claim could determine whether he meets the schedular requirement or not. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Should the Veteran not meet the schedular requirement, the circumstances of the Veteran’s case warrants a determination from the Director of Compensation Service as to whether he should receive TDIU on an extraschedular basis. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claims folder to an appropriate examiner for opinion as to whether it is factually ascertainable that his workload capacity of 3 METs but not greater than 5 METs had been present prior to May 30, 2019 and, if so, identify the approximate month and year. In so doing, the examiner should review the medical records including the reports of shortness of breath in the VA clinic in March 2019. 2. Readjudicate the claim for an increased rating. If the Veteran does not meet the schedular criteria for TDIU for any time during the appeal period, forward the Veteran’s claim to the Director of Compensation Service, for consideration of the assignment of an extraschedular rating for a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities under 38C.F.R.§4.16(b). T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Adeleke, Tomi 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.