Citation Nr: 21023239
Decision Date: 04/20/21	Archive Date: 04/20/21

DOCKET NO. 17-36 365A
DATE: April 20, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for hepatitis C prior to June 1, 2017, and in excess of 40 percent from June 1, 2017, is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to December 1969.  This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from March and July 2017 rating decisions.  

In December 2019 this matter was last before the Board at which time it was remanded.  

The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has included entitlement to a TDIU as part of the current appeal.  Therefore, it is included in the present Remand.  See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009).

 

1. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for hepatitis C prior to June 1, 2017, and in excess of 40 percent from June 1, 2017, is remanded.

2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded.

Since the issuance of the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in October 2020, additional pertinent evidence was associated with the claims file.  Recognizing such, the Board requested a waiver of initial AOJ consideration of the evidence in a February 23, 2021, letter sent to the Veteran and his representative. The Veteran was notified in this letter that he had 45 days to respond, otherwise the Board would remand his claims.  The Veteran has not responded to VA’s waiver request and the 45-day period has elapsed.  Accordingly, the issues are remanded to the AOJ for the readjudication and issuance of a SSOC, if warranted.  38 C.F.R. § 19.31.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Given that the Veteran has not responded to VA’s waiver request and the 45-day period has elapsed, the issues are remanded to the AOJ for readjudication and issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), if warranted.  38 C.F.R. § 19.31.

 

 

Shereen M. Marcus

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Joseph R. Keselyak, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.