Citation Nr: 21015776 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 17-58 519 DATE: March 18, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to eligibility for specially adapted housing (SAH) is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome of the right upper extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome of the left upper extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability, to include right ankle strain is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bone fragment is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for adult-onset diabetes is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected migraine headaches is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for left upper extremity tremor, non-dominant (claimed as left-hand nerve damage) is remanded. Entitlement to restoration of a rating reduction of the right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for thoracolumbar degenerative disease is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. FINDING OF FACT 1. At his November 2019 hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision on this appeal, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board) received notification from the Veteran that withdrawal of his appeal for entitlement to eligibility for SAH was requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for entitlement to eligibility for SAH are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from August 1999 to January 2007, and additional service in the Air Force Reserve until 2009. See DD Form 214. The Veteran was afforded a November 2019 Board hearing before the undersigned, and a transcript has been associated with the record. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. In addition, the Veteran was granted several requested extensions, most recently in October 2020. See October 2020 BVA Letter. Reconsideration At any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service treatment records that existed but were not associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim, rather than requiring new and material evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1). Therefore, new and material evidence is not needed to reopen a previously denied claim when relevant service treatment records are received after a prior final denial. Rather, the claim is simply reviewed on a de novo basis. Here, in a January 2008 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim, in pertinent part, for service connection for bilateral knee disability, and for a right ankle disability for lack of an in-service occurrence and a nexus. See January 2008 Rating Decision-Narrative. Then, in May 2013, the RO denied entitlement for service connection for the right knee and the right ankle, and also in pertinent part denied the claims of entitlement to service connection for left and right upper extremity carpal tunnel syndrome finding no in-service incurrence or nexus. See May 2013 Rating Decision-Narrative. The January 2008 and May 2013 decisions are final, as the Veteran did not appeal these decisions. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103. In October 2014, the Veteran submitted an application to reopen his claims for entitlement to service connection for left and right carpal tunnel syndrome, right ankle, and left and right knees. See October 2014 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). Since then, the VA received relevant service treatment records from his period of active duty, which reveals complaints related to his knees, ankles and upper extremities. See STRS received November 2014, and received March 2015. Therefore, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) applies, and the claim for service connection for carpal tunnel of the right and left upper extremities, right ankle disability, and right and left knee disabilities will be reconsidered, without any threshold issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claims. For the reasons discussed in the Remand section below, these claims are remanded. 1. Entitlement to eligibility for SAH The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his authorized representative. Id. At his November 2019 hearing, the appellant indicated that he wished to withdraw his appeal for his claim of entitlement to eligibility for SAH. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. The withdrawal was effective immediately upon receipt by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2020). The Board finds that the Veteran’s withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action. See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). Thus, there remains no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal concerning the above-mentioned issue and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND All Issues At his November 2019 hearing, the Veteran indicated that he is being treated at the Base, which the record suggests refers to Randolph Air Force Base. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript; see November 2016 CAPRI. Although in October 2017 the RO determined that Randolph AFB records were not available, on remand they should again be requested, with any necessary authorization from the Veteran. In addition, the Veteran indicated that he had service in the Reserve through 2009, and these medical records should be obtained. See February 2015 NOD. As a preliminary matter, active military, naval, or air service includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty, or any period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury (but not disease) incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (21), (22), (23), (24), 106; 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a), (c), (d). Before proceeding with a decision, the Veteran’s duty status during Reserve must be verified, and his service department ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA records must be obtained. Cahall v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 232 (1994). Remand is required because the Veteran’s representative requested that VA obtain and provide information relating to the VA examiner’s credentials. See October 2019 Third Party Correspondence. Where the Veteran challenges the competence of the medical examiner, VA must “satisfy its burden of persuasion as to the examiner’s qualifications.” Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2019). And because a veteran must challenge an examiner’s competence in the first instance, “the veteran must have the ability to secure from the VA the information necessary to raise the competency challenge.” Id. Thus, “[o]nce the request is made for information as to the competency of the examiner, the veteran has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner.” Id. Remand is required for the Board to furnish the curriculum vitae and other information about the qualifications of the medical examiner as part of VA’s duty to assist. Id. 1.-2. Entitlement to service connection for right and left carpal tunnel syndrome. At his November 2019 hearing the Veteran contended that his right and left carpal tunnel syndrome were due to his service, particularly considering his work as a heavy equipment operator and jackhammering that he did replacing sections of a flight line and sidewalks in South Cape. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript; see DD Form 214 showing MOS as a Civil Engineer. He described experiencing locking of his fingers and knuckles due to jackhammering for approximately an hour at a time. Id. He reported experiencing trigger fingers, or locking up of the fingers in service. Id. He described soaking his fingers in ice water and wrapping them for relief. Id. He reported hand stiffness and feeling his hands were overworked from vibrations by the end of the day. Id. The Veteran was most recently provided a VA examination for his upper extremities in February 2017 and the examiner noted there was no pathology on which to provide a diagnosis. See February 2017 VA Examination Peripheral Nerves Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire. It is well established that when VA undertakes to provide an examination or medical opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Barr v. Nicholson, 23 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The Board notes, however, that the VA examiner did not consider the Veteran’s symptomatology, to include that experienced during service. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report experiencing locking fingers, stiffness and feeling overworked by tool vibrations, and these contentions should be considered by the examiner when formulating the nexus opinion. Specifically, the Board requests the examiner opine whether it is at least as likely as not, considering the Veteran’s reported symptomatology and work history in service, that the Veteran’s current disability is the type that is consistent with the work and symptoms as he has described them. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning). 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability, to include right ankle strain is remanded; 4. Entitlement to service connection for the left ankle (claimed as bone fractures); 5. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded; 6. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for right and left knee disabilities, and a right ankle disability to include as secondary to thoracolumbar degenerative disease. See October 2014 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). Regarding the right ankle, the Veteran has specifically described his belief that overcompensating for a left ankle injury has caused problems with his right ankle. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. In July 2017, the Veteran claimed entitlement to service connection for bone fractures. See July 2017 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). At his Board hearing, the Veteran reported that the bone fractures claim actually pertained to a claim for service connection for his left ankle. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. November 2000 treatment record showed the left ankle rolled, March 2003 medical record shows left ankle sprain, and March 2010 indicated the right ankle was in more pain than the left due to a limp. See STR-Medical received November 2011. The Board finds that a VA examination to discuss the nature and etiology of a left ankle disability, claimed as bone fractures is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). At the November 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran reported instances when his legs give out on him when he is walking, and constant pain. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. He described having to physically pick up his leg when walking up stairs. Id. He reported that in service he was constantly working on concrete and having to jump down from heavy equipment doing three-point landings to include on his knees. Id. Indeed, a workplace narrative from July 1999 indicated that the Veteran operated heavy construction equipment, and mixed, poured and formed concrete to form parking lots, with ergonomic stress from creating concrete forms noted to affect personnel. See STR-Medical. In September 2007, following a General Medical Examination diagnoses were of right ankle strain and bilateral patellofemoral syndrome, and there was a slight antalgic gait. See September 2007 VA Examination General Medical Examination. The right ankle showed decreased motion, crepitus, tenderness and painful movement. Id. A March 2010 medical record indicates that the Veteran’s right ankle was in more pain that the left due to his limp. See March 2010 STR-Medical. March 2012 medical record indicates there was weakness of the right knee. See March 2012 STR. The Board finds that VA examination is necessary to assess the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed right ankle, and left and right knee disabilities. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The examiner should indicate whether the Veteran’s claimed disabilities are consistent with his reports of symptoms and duties in service, or in the alternative whether the right or left knee disability or right ankle is secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine condition, to include antalgic gait. 7. Entitlement to service connection for adult onset diabetes In July 2017, the Veteran claimed entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus. See July 2017 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). At his Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he had borderline pre-diabetes even while he was in service. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, and the Board finds that a VA examination to discuss the nature and etiology of his diabetes mellitus is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see February 2012 CAPRI. 8. Entitlement to service connection for TBI In July 2017, the Veteran claimed entitlement to service connection for TBI. See July 2017 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). VA treatment record rom May 2010 shows that the Veteran was positive for TBI and post-blast residual symptoms based on review of case data. See May 2010 CAPRI. Specifically, the Veteran reported migraines since his head injuries and problems with irritability, sleep and balance. See February 2010 CAPRI. At his hearing the Veteran described instances in service when he lost consciousness, specifically including a time he blacked out when an IED hit a nearby dump truck causing him to hit his head, and another time he blacked out when he was hit by the tailgate of a forklift at Patrick Air Force Base. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. August 2017 VA examination indicates that review of the medical records fail to support claimed TBI condition, and although the Veteran had complained of a headache and mentioned trauma to the head in 2002, there was no mention of loss of consciousness, and no nexus. See August 2017 VA Examination Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaire. The Board notes, however, at his hearing the Veteran clarified that he blacked out on two occasions in service. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. The August 2017 VA examiner recorded the Veteran’s reports of hitting his head with the tailgate of a dump truck in 2009 and blacking out for a few minutes, yet the examiner’s reasoning for the negative nexus opinion failed to consider this when it concluded that there was no lack of consciousness. It is well established that when VA undertakes to provide an examination or medical opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Barr v. Nicholson, 23 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). As such, the Board finds another VA examination is warranted, and the examiner is requested to specifically discuss the Veteran’s reported instances of head injuries and loss of consciousness or blacking out while in service. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning). 9. Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected migraine headaches At his November 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran described experiencing headaches that required him to lay down on the bed, or sometimes on the floor, with the lights out. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. He indicated that during those times he had to close his eyes. Id. He indicated that these headaches, require him to at least lay in bed having taken medication, two to three times a week. Id. During headaches, lights bother him and he wears sunglasses. He thought perhaps he had experienced an aura around his vision. Id. The Veteran was most recently examined in October 2016, and that examiner noted the Veteran’s headaches were not prostrating. See October 2016 VA Examination Headaches (including Migraine Headaches (Disability Benefits Questionnaire). It appears that the Veteran’s migraine disability has worsened since his most recent October 2016 VA examination, where he has since described having to lay down two to three times a week due to his headaches. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. In light of the record suggesting worsening of his condition and the need for contemporaneous medical evidence, remand is necessary. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). 10. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for left upper extremity tremor, non-dominant (claimed as left-hand nerve damage) In January 2008, the Veteran’s left upper extremity tremor (left hand nerve damage) was service connected and rated as 10 percent disabling effective January 12, 2007. See January 2008 Rating Decision-Narrative. In October 2014 the Veteran claimed an increased rating for his left hand. See October 2014 VA 21-8940 Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability; and see October 2014 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). The Board notes that left upper extremity tremor is currently rated under Diagnostic Code 8515 for paralysis of the median nerve; however, a private medical opinion from June 2020 suggests that his left hand should be rated according to Diagnostic Code 8004 for paralysis agitans. See August 2020 Third Party Correspondence, with June 2020 Service-Connected Evaluation by R. Phelps, Jr. MD. As such, the Board would find it helpful for a VA examiner to discuss the Veteran’s disability in light of the applicable Diagnostic Codes, providing reasoning for why the disability is better assessed as paralysis agitans or paralysis of the median nerve. 11. Entitlement to restoration of a rating reduction of the right lower extremity radiculopathy In July 2015 the RO reduced the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy from 40 percent to 10 percent disabling, and the Veteran appealed the propriety of the reduction. See July 2015 Rating Decision-Narrative; see August 2015 NOD. At his hearing, the Veteran reported that he attended a VA examination, which he felt was improperly conducted, and soon after his rating was reduced. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. Further, he described the examination on which his rating reduction from 40 to 10 percent had been based, and reported that the examiner pricked him with actual safety pins (even causing him to bleed) so that he sought help from patient advocacy. See November 2014 VA Examination Central Nervous System and Neuromuscular Diseases Disability Benefits Questionnaire. Where, as here the Veteran and his representative have challenged the competency of the examiner, it is necessary to obtain and provide the requested information as to the examiner’s qualifications. Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 12. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy; 13. Entitlement to rating greater than 10 percent for thoracolumbar degenerative disease is remanded. In October 2014 the Veteran claimed an increased rating for his service-connected lumbar spine disability, and this includes consideration for his right lower extremity radiculopathy associated with thoracolumbar degenerative disease. See October 2014 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation). At the November 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran reported instances when his back “goes down” while he is walking. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. He also reported experiencing constant pain. The Veteran reported that he had fallen approximately eight or nine times since 2016 due to the combination of his back and right leg giving out, with the most recent fall being just a couple of weeks prior. Id. In sum, the Veteran indicated that his back condition had worsened since his most recent VA examination. Id. The Board observes that the back and right lower extremity radiculopathy are intertwined, and examination addresses both per the rating criteria. In light of the record suggesting worsening of his condition since his October 2016 VA examination, and the need for contemporaneous medical evidence, remand is necessary. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); see October 2016 VA Examination Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Disability Benefits Questionnaire. In addition, the Board observes that the examiner should attempt to elicit the information regarding the Veteran’s flare-ups, and provide an estimate of range of motion loss during a flare-up. 14. Entitlement to TDIU due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. At the November 2019 hearing the representative indicated that the Veteran continued to work because he felt he needed to continue to make money to help support his family. See November 2019 Hearing Transcript. Even so, it is unclear whether the Veteran is marginally employed, and information regarding the Veteran’s employment should be requested. Further, the issue of TDIU is intertwined with the issues being remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to submit any evidence in his possession which shows his duty status from 2007 through 2009, to include copies of any orders or other service personnel records, or annual point summaries. 2. Contact the appropriate source(s) to verify all periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA with the Air Force Guard and Reserves. Reports of retirement points do not provide sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of this remand order. A listing of dates of service and whether within those dates the service can be characterized as active, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA, is required. 3. Request all outstanding treatment records from Randolph Air Force Base. 4. Request the representative clarify which examinations she would like the examiner’s qualifications for, and then solicit the appropriate curriculum vitae and other information about the qualifications of the medical examiner(s), and furnish this information to the Veteran and his representative. 5. The Board recognizes the potential practical difficulties in scheduling an examination in light of the COVID-19 epidemic and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran any warranted examination(s). 6. Schedule the Veteran for VA examination(s) by appropriate clinician(s) (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) to determine the nature and etiology of any (a) right carpal tunnel syndrome (b) left carpal tunnel syndrome, (c) right ankle disability, (d) left ankle disability (claimed as bone fractures), (e) left knee disability, (f) right knee disability, (g) diabetes mellitus, and (h) TBI. The examiner must opine whether: (a) any right carpal tunnel syndrome is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease; or become manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. (b) any left carpal tunnel syndrome is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease; or become manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. The examiner should specifically opine as to whether the Veteran’s current symptomatology of the right and left upper extremities is of the type consistent with the in-service work history and symptoms as described (the examiner is not requested to opine as to the Veteran’s credibility as to his reports). The examiner should ask the Veteran any necessary questions to determine the extent of his symptoms and relevant work in service. (c) any right ankle disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease; If not, then the examiner must consider whether it is at least as likely as not that any right ankle disability is: (1) proximately due to a service-connected disorder, or (2) underwent any incremental increase in disability, regardless of its permanence by service-connected disability. (d) any left ankle disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease; If not, then the examiner must consider whether it is at least as likely as not that any right ankle disability is: (1) proximately due to a service-connected disorder, or (2) underwent any incremental increase in disability, regardless of its permanence by service-connected disability (e) any left knee disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease If not, then the examiner must consider whether it is at least as likely as not that any left knee disability is: (1) proximately due to a service-connected disorder, or (2) underwent any incremental increase in disability, regardless of its permanence by service-connected disability. (f) any right knee disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease If not, then the examiner must consider whether it is at least as likely as not that any right knee disability is: (1) proximately due to a service-connected disorder, or (2) underwent any incremental increase in disability, regardless of its permanence by service-connected disability. (g) any diabetes mellitus is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease; or become manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. The examiner must discuss the Veteran’s reports and service treatment records which show elevated glucose and/or sugar readings in service, with pre-diabetes. (h) any TBI is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event or disease. *The examiner should provide a rationale for all opinions reached, and should discuss the Veteran’s statements in the formulation of such opinions. ** The term “incremental increase” in disability means additional impairment of earning capacity. Objective measurement, or numerical quantification, is not required to ascertain an increase in disability. ***The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility.” Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of the conclusion (e.g., etiology) as it is to find against the conclusion. 7. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected: (a) migraine headaches, (b) left upper extremity tremor, (claimed as left-hand nerve damage), (c) thoracolumbar degenerative disease, and (d) right lower extremity radiculopathy associated with thoracolumbar degenerative disease. i. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disabilities under the rating criteria. ii. The examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. iii. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to lumbar spine, right lower extremity radiculopathy, and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s lumbar spine, and right lower extremity radiculopathy on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran’s statements. iv. THE EXAMINER SHOULD STATE WHETHER THE VETERAN’S SERVICE-CONNECTED THORACOLUMBAR DEGENERATIVE DISEASE RESULTS IN INCAPACITATING EPISODES MANIFESTED BY PHYSICIAN-PRESCRIBED BED REST. IF SO, THE EXAMINER SHOULD REPORT THE DATES AND DURATIONS OF THESE INCAPACITATING EPISODES. v. THE EXAMINER IS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO DISCUSS WHETHER THE VETERAN’S LEFT UPPER EXTREMITY TREMOR SYMPTOMATOLOGY IS BEST ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA IN 8515 FOR PARALYSIS OF THE MEDIAN NERVE OR DIAGNOSTIC CODE 8004 FOR PARALYSIS AGITANS. • It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. • The examiner must provide a clear rationale for all opinions provided. If any opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and explain why. • The examiner(s) should identify all limitations or functional impairment caused solely by his service-connected disabilities. 8. Develop the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to TDIU, specifically to include obtaining the relevant employment information and/or records from the Veteran, in addition to any other necessary development. 9. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Barner, 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.