Citation Nr: 21025807
Decision Date: 04/29/21	Archive Date: 04/29/21

DOCKET NO. 15-26 944
DATE: April 29, 2021

REMANDED

The claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1986 to September 1987.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

In July 2018, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the Board.  A transcript of the hearing has been included in the electronic record and has been reviewed.  

In October 2018, the Board remanded claims which form the basis of the claim on appeal.  See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009).  In September 2020 and January 2021, the Board remanded the TDIU claim.  

The claim must be remanded again because, as noted in the January 2021 remand, it is intertwined with two claims currently pending before the RO.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order).

In July 2020, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disability and for radiculopathy related to service-connected lower back disability.  With regard to the initial ratings and effective dates assigned by the RO, the appeal period has not expired.  Inasmuch as the TDIU claim rests upon these two issues, a decision should be deferred until the claims addressed in the July 2020 rating decision have been finally decided.  See Smith v. Gober, 236 F.3d. 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Once the claims regarding psychiatric disability and radiculopathy addressed in the July 2020 rating decision have been finally decided, readjudicate the TDIU claim.  Then, if warranted, return the case to the Board.

 

 

G. A. WASIK

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.