Citation Nr: 21022764 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-26 652 DATE: April 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for headaches is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from January 1997 to May 1997 and on active duty from November 2001 to July 2003, April 2004 to July 2004, January 2005 to April 2005, February 2009 to May 2009, and May 2013 to February 2014. The Veteran appeals a May 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran’s representative withdrew their representation. See October 2019 correspondence. As the Veteran has not appointed a new representative since his representative’s withdrawal, the Veteran is unrepresented in his appeal. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination regarding his headaches. Although the May 2015 rating decision and April 2016 statement of the case (SOC) suggest that the Veteran did not respond to attempts to schedule an examination, the Veteran stated he was not reached regarding scheduling an examination. See June 2016 VA Form 9. Nevertheless, the Veteran stated he has had an increase in his headaches and his statements suggest a worsening of his condition. See June 2016 VA Form 9 and Veteran statement. Where a Veteran contends that a disability has worsened since his last VA examination, and the last examination is too remote to constitute a contemporaneous examination, a new examination is required. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403-04 (1997). Given the fact the Veteran never received a VA examination regarding his headaches and the evidence suggests worsening since the March 2015 VA examination report, the case should be remanded for an examination. The Veteran also noted he has become too disabled to work due to his headaches. See June 2016 Veteran statement. As such, the issue of entitlement to TDIU has been raised in this case and will be considered by the Board. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-55 (2009). Nevertheless, the Veteran’s work history is unclear. As such, additional development is required on remand. Additionally, as the TDIU claim is premised on the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected headaches, the issue of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with that issue. Accordingly, the Board will defer adjudication on the matter. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for his service-connected headaches that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. Obtain a complete post service employment and education history of the Veteran. The employment history should indicate the type of position, whether any position held was full time or part time (including hours per week worked if part time) and the wages earned. Any employment accommodations should be described in detail. 3. After the development in #1 above is completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected headaches. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. 4. After the above development has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Zheng, 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.