Citation Nr: 21011522 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-20 838 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for asthma with chest pain prior to December 2, 2019, and in excess of 60 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for depressive disorder is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 23, 2012 for the grant of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1980 to December 1981 and had subsequent service in the Army Reserve. The Veteran appealed April 2010 and July 2013 rating decisions by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In August 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded the Veteran’s claims to the AOJ for further action consistent with the Board’s remand directives. The claims are back before the Board for further appellate proceedings. The case is now back before the Board. A Board hearing was held in July 2018. A transcript is of record. The Board notes the August 2019 Board decision additionally remanded the issues of service-connection for hypertension and chest pain. A September 2020 rating decision granted service-connection for hypertension. The Veteran has not expressed further disagreement with the September 2020 rating decision. Since this is a full grant of benefits sought regarding service-connection for hypertension, that issue is no longer on appeal. A December 2020 rating decision noted that chest pain was associated with the Veteran’s service-connected asthma, continued her asthma rating, and noted that she was not entitled to a separate compensable rating for chest pain. The issue regarding chest pain is now incorporated into the Veteran’s rating for asthma. The issue regarding a higher rating for the Veteran’s service-connected asthma remains on appeal. The supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) regarding the Veteran’s appeal was issued in July 2020. In September and December 2020, additional VA examination reports and VA treatment records were added to the record. The Board sent the Veteran correspondence in December 2020 asking whether she waived AOJ review of this evidence. The Veteran did not respond. Therefore, the issues are remanded for AOJ review of additional evidence added since the SSOC. The Veteran was additionally granted entitlement to TDIU effective August 23, 2012 in a July 2020 rating decision. However, the issue regarding the rating for the Veteran’s service-connected asthma dates to the initial claim received July 17, 2009. See July 2010 and 2011 Veteran statements. The Veteran claimed entitlement to TDIU based in-part on her asthma. See October 2012 VA Form 21-8940. Therefore, the appeal period regarding TDIU dates to July 17, 2009. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-55 (2009). As the TDIU claim is premised in part on the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected asthma and depression, the issue of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with those issues. Accordingly, the Board will defer adjudication on the matter. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for her asthma and depression that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. After the above development has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran with a SSOC, and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Zheng, 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.