Citation Nr: 21013087 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 14-06 812 DATE: March 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1984 to January 1987 and from January 1991 to May 1991. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously remanded this matter in October 2018 and November 2019 for additional development. Unfortunately, as explained below, the Board is not satisfied that there has been substantial compliance with its prior remand instructions; therefore, the appeal must be remanded once again. See D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. As an initial matter, the Board notes that subsequent to the issuance of the September 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), medical evidence pertinent to the Veteran’s TDIU claim was associated with the claims file, including an October 2020 VA examination report for his service-connected cervical spine disability. However, the RO did not issue another SSOC as required by 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37. As such, remand is required for the RO to readjudicate the claim, with specific consideration of any additional evidence received since the September 2020 SSOC. Notwithstanding the need for an SSOC, the Board also finds that the Veteran’s TDIU claim requires additional evidentiary development, as outlined below, prior to appellate review. In its November 2019 remand, the Board determined that the evidence of record was insufficient to make an informed decision on the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a TDIU. In this regard, the Board observed, for example, that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder was last evaluated on VA examination in February 2013 and, at that time, the VA examiner did not comment or elaborate on the functional impacts caused by the Veteran’s mental health disability. Likewise, at a March 2018 VA examination a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s tension headaches do not impact his ability to work despite the Veteran’s reports that he experiences two to three “sharp” headaches per week, which are accompanied by nausea and vomiting. Given the foregoing, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim to afford the Veteran a VA general examination to assist the Board in considering the cumulative effects of all of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities on his occupational functioning. In accordance with the Board’s remand directives, it appears that the RO attempted to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination in November 2019. However, the examination was cancelled with the stated reason “Veteran unavailable.” It does not appear that any further efforts were made to contact the Veteran or attempt to reschedule the VA examination. Since the cancelled examination, the Veteran successfully attended other VA examinations in November 2019, January 2020, and October 2020, as well as many other routine medical appointments at his local VA medical center. As such, it is unclear to the Board why additional efforts were not made to comply with its remand directives to schedule the Veteran for a VA general examination or, at the least, to obtain the requested opinion regarding the Veteran’s employability from a VA vocational counselor or another qualified professional. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand directives, and the Board has a duty to ensure such compliance.  Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271.  In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that remand is required once again to comply with the Board’s November 2019 remand directives. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.  The Veteran is reminded that failure to report for a scheduled examination or failure to cooperate with any requested development may result in the denial of his claim.  In relevant part, VA regulation provides that when entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination, and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination, action shall be rated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA general examination by an appropriate clinician to provide an opinion regarding the Veteran’s TDIU claim. The purpose is to assist the Board in ascertaining the impact of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities on his ability to work. The entire claims file and a copy of this REMAND must be made available to the clinician for review. If the Veteran is unable to attend an in-person examination, then the RO should undertake efforts to obtain an opinion from a VA vocational expert or another qualified professional, taking into consideration the VA examinations already of record evaluating the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. The VA clinician must provide a functional assessment of each of the Veteran’s individual service-connected disabilities on his ability to work, as well as an analysis of the combined impact of the service-connected disabilities, without consideration of his age or nonservice-connected disabilities. The clinician must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for all opinions provided. 2. After the requested development has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal with consideration of all evidence associated with the claims file since the September 2020 SSOC. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, issue an SSOC and allow the appropriate time for response before returning the case to the Board for further appellate review. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Melissa Barbee, 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.