Citation Nr: 21012442 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-14 148 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from November 1965 to January 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in July 2018 for further development. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, further development is required before a decision may be made on the merits of the issue on appeal. The Veteran contends that all of his service-connected disabilities prevent him from securing and maintaining substantially gainful employment. In the VA 21-8940 application for a TDIU, the Veteran indicated that he was last employed as a bus driver and worked 20 hours or less per week from 2013 to March 2019. He reported that he left this job because of his service-connected disabilities. See VA 21-8940, received March 2019. During an August 2020 VA skin diseases examination, the Veteran reported that he had worked as a school bus driver beginning in 2015 and ending 1.5 years prior to the examination. See C&P Exam, received by VA in August 2020. To date, the RO has not undertaken any development to obtain information from the Veteran’s most recent employer, such as sending the employer a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information. Additionally, the Veteran has not provided the exact dates of his most recent employment. Under the foregoing circumstances, the Board finds a remand is warranted to solicit an updated VA Form 21-8940, Application for a TDIU, from the Veteran, and a completed VA Form 21-4192 from the Veteran’s most recent employer. In addition, the Board will request an opinion from a qualified VA medical examiner regarding the combined effects the of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities on his employability throughout the appeal period. In this regard, the Board notes that the ultimate question of whether a Veteran is capable of substantially gainful employment is an adjudicatory determination, not a medical one. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1988) (requiring “all pertinent medical and lay evidence” to be considered in rating determinations); See also Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A]pplicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner”); Moore v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 211, 218 (2007) (discussing 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 and stating that “[t]he medical examiner provides a disability evaluation and the rating specialist interprets medical reports in order to match the rating with the disability”). “[I]t is the responsibility of the rating specialist to... reconcil[e] the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present.” See Moore v. Shinseki, 21 Vet. App. 211, 218 (2007) (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 4.2). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Solicit an updated VA Form 21-8940, Application for a TDIU, from the Veteran, and a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information, from the Veteran’s most recent employer, in addition to any other evidence relevant to the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. 2. Forward the Veteran’s claim to a qualified VA examiner for an opinion regarding the combined effects of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities on his employability throughout the period on appeal. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should provide a full description of the effects the Veteran’s service-connected urinary hesitancy as residual of prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy, coronary artery disease, degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder status post total arthroplasty, left shoulder acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis, amputation of the middle right finger, fusion of the lumbar spine, left knee degenerative joint disease status post arthroscopic debridement, right knee degenerative joint disease status post arthroscopic debridement, tinnitus, left lower extremity radiculopathy associated with fusion of the lumbar spine, peptic ulcer disease, bilateral hearing loss, scars on right upper shoulder status post arthroplasty, erectile dysfunction as residual of prostate cancer with radical prostatectomy, and lower extremity skin rashes had on his ordinary activities, to include his employability throughout the period on appeal. The examiner must provide a rationale for any proffered opinion. 3. Undertake any other development determined to be warranted. 4. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded a requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, as appropriate. B. G. LeMoine Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fairlie, 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.