Citation Nr: 21025130 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-11 268 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for the regular aid and attendance of another person or housebound status is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability is remanded REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1966 to October 1968. The current appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a September 2014 rating decision in which a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), inter alia, denied entitlement to SMC based on the need for the regular aid and attendance of another person and/or housebound status, and denied entitlement to a TDIU. In July 2018, the Veteran’s attorney withdrew a prior request for a Board hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.603(e). In January 2020, the Board remanded claims of entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus (DMII) and for hypertension, which were part of the Veteran’s original claims that were denied in the September 2014 rating decision, to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. The AOJ is still completing development on those claims. Thus, they are not currently before the Board. Entitlement to SMC and TDIU The Veteran originally claimed entitlement to SMC and to a TDIU based on claimed disabilities, including DMII and hypertension, that were denied in the September 2014 rating decision. The Board denied the service connection claims for DMII and hypertension in September 2018. At that time, the Board remanded the SMC and TDIU claims as issues inextricably intertwined with a remanded service connection claim for loss of use of the right eye. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (issues are “inextricably intertwined” when a decision on one issue would have a “significant impact” on a veteran’s claim for the second issue). Later, in a June 2019 Order, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) which remanded the service connection claims for DMII and hypertension to the Board for action consistent with terms of the JMPR. The Board, in turn, remanded those claims to the AOJ for further development in January 2020. The Veteran’s attorney contended in an August 2020 statement that the SMC and TDIU on appeal were inextricably intertwined with the service connection claims for DMII and hypertension which were remanded by the Board in January 2020, and thus, indicated that the issues should be decided together. The Board agrees with the Veteran’s attorney. Accordingly, the Board finds that consideration of the SMC and TDIU claims must be deferred until the intertwined claims for service connection have either been resolved or prepared for appellate consideration. See Harris, 1 Vet. App. 180 (the prohibition against the adjudication of claims that are inextricably intertwined is based upon the recognition that claims related to each other should not be subject to piecemeal decision-making or appellate litigation). Accordingly, these matters are hereby REMANDED for the following action: Following completion of the requested development in the Board’s January 2020 remand for the claims of entitlement to service connection for DMII and hypertension, readjudicate the claim of entitlement to SMC based on the need for the regular aid and attendance of another person or housebound status, and the claim for a TDIU, together with the remanded service connection claims. If the full benefits sought on appeal are not awarded, return the appeal to the Board as appropriate. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring that the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). His failure to report for any VA medical examination that may be scheduled may impact determinations made. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. He is also advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to these matters. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Wilson, 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.