Citation Nr: 21011659 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-11 321 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for hidradenitis suppurative (HS) from February 4, 2013 to August 29, 2013 is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for HS from October 1, 2013 to January 5, 2017 is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for HS from January 5, 2017 is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty in the United States Army from April 2006 to December 2008. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals from an appeal of a January 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A claim for entitlement to a TDIU is part and parcel of any claim for an increased disability. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). As the evidence of record suggests pursuit of entitlement to a TDIU, the Board has added the issue herein. In March 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that proceeding has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. In a September 2019 decision and remand, the Board, in part, denied entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for HS from October 1, 2013 to January 2017. In pertinent part, the Board found that the symptoms of the Veteran’s HS most closely approximated a 30 percent disability rating under the criteria in 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7899-7806. The Veteran appealed the September 2019 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims (Court), resulting in a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). A July 2, 2020 Court order partially vacated the portion of the Board’s decision that denied entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for HS from October 1, 2013 to January 2017, remanding this issue on appeal for compliance with instructions in the June 2020 JMPR. JPMR The parties to the JMPR agreed that the Board erred in finding that the Veteran sought a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for HS “between October 1, 2013 and prior to January 5, 2017.” The parties noted that the Board only addressed the propriety of the 30 percent disability rating for this period of time but neglected to address the window of time between February 4, 2013 and August 29, 2013 when the Veteran was also rated at 30 percent for HS. The parties also found that the Board failed to discuss whether extraschedular consideration was warranted for the period prior to January 5, 2017. Here, the parties took note that the applicable rating criteria for HS does not consider pain and constant oozing pus, blood, and various forms of discomfort with multiple emergency room visits per year and that the issue of extraschedular consideration was reasonably raised in the evidence of record. The Veteran submitted a claim for an increased rating on February 4. 2013. The medical evidence of record discloses that the Veteran was admitted into the Northport, New York VA Medical Center (VAMC) on August 29, 2013 for a surgical procedure for insertion of Penrose drains to ameliorate the symptoms of perianal abscesses. The Veteran was awarded a 100 percent rating under C.F.R. § 4.30 from the date of admission through October 1, 2013. Prior to this surgical procedure, the Veteran’s HS (then characterized as “perianal abscess with painful, unstable scars and multiple scars of the posterior trunk”) was assigned a 30 percent disability rating. Discussion A review of the record shows that the RO has not completed development pursuant to the Board’s September 2019 remand directives. A supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) has not been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. As the directed development has not concluded, the Board herein revises its September 2019 remand directives to comply with the terms of the June 2020 JMPR. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Afford the Veteran the opportunity to identify or submit any additional relevant evidence and argument in support of his claims on appeal. 2. Contact the Veteran and his representative to ascertain whether there are any outstanding private medical records that are pertinent to the issues on appeal. If so identified, prepare releases, obtain the records, and associate them with the claims file. 3. Consider whether additional ratings are warranted by analogy under diagnostic codes other than Diagnostic Code 7806 that contemplate the Veteran’s report of continuous oozing pus and unbearable pain such as, but not limited to, Diagnostic Codes 7828 and 7829. Should the Veteran’s oozing and draining symptomatology do not fall within the schedular parameters by analogy, then refer this issue of a rating for HS to include oozing and draining to the Undersecretary for Benefits or the Director of Compensation Services for consideration of assignment of extraschedular ratings. Upon completion of the above, 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the combined effects of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities and any resulting impairment. The clinician should address how the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities exclusively result in functional impairment and comment upon the Veteran’s ability to function in occupational environments. If possible, the clinician should indicate whether there are any types of employment that the Veteran could perform, and if so, what type in light of his professional experiences and degree of education, as noted in the evidence of record (to include Social Security Administration (SSA) records and VA documents). (continued next page) Upon completion of all of the above-directed tasks and considerations, the RO must then adjudicate the Veteran’s entitlement to a TDIU. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. J. Komins, 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.