Citation Nr: 21015704 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 15-43 689 DATE: March 18, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to a disability evaluation in excess of 60 percent for the left knee status post total knee replacement for the period prior to February 27, 2018, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability evaluation in excess of 60 percent for the left knee status post total knee replacement for the period from June 1, 2018 to June 4, 2020, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability evaluation in excess of 60 percent for the left knee status post total knee replacement for the period beginning October 1, 2020, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for residuals of left knee injury prior to August 17, 2015, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee arthritis prior to August 17, 2015 is remanded. FINDING OF FACT An August 2020 rating decision granted entitlement to a TDIU for all relevant periods on appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW There is no question of law or fact involving the claim of entitlement to a TDIU, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.24, 20.101. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1988 to March 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). When the left knee replacement issues were last before the Board in May 2019, it was remanded for additional development. Specifically, the RO was instructed to provide the Veteran with an examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected left knee condition and obtain outstanding records. The Veteran was provided a relevant examination and the relevant records were obtained. As such, the Board finds that the AOJ substantially complied with the directives in the May 2019 remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). TDIU The Board has jurisdiction in all matters where there is a question of law or fact necessary for a decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or their dependents or survivors. 38 U.S.C. § 7104. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege a specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. In an August 2020 rating decision, the RO granted the relief sought, namely, entitlement to a TDIU throughout the relevant periods. As such, the Veteran’s appeal for entitlement to a TDIU is moot, as the benefits sought on appeal have already been granted. See Baughman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 563, 566 (1991), see also Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (where an appealed claim for service connection is granted during the pendency of the appeal, a second NOD must thereafter be timely filed to initiate appellate review of “downstream” issues such as the compensation level assigned for the disability or the effective date of service connection). Because there remains no case or controversy concerning whether the Veteran is entitled to the benefits sought, as the issue has been granted, this appeal is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5). REASONS FOR REMAND Left Knee Claims Since the Board’s September 2020 Remand, and the October 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) additional medical evidence to include VA examinations relevant to the matters on appeal have been associated with the claims file. The RO provided the Veteran with an October 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) for his claimed knee claims. However, the RO did not address the new relevant evidence regarding the Veteran’s knee claims; nor did the RO provide the Veteran with a SSOC which addressed these claims, or the new evidence associated with the claims file. The Board notes that the Veteran has not waived initial agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) review of this new evidence. Therefore, the Board concludes that a remand for a SSOC is necessary before a decision can be reached. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Issue an SSOC pertaining to the Veteran’s increased rating for his left knee claims. The matters should then be returned to the Board for appropriate appellate review, if otherwise in order. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Gresham 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.