Citation Nr: 21027288
Decision Date: 05/05/21	Archive Date: 05/05/21

DOCKET NO. 17-65 307
DATE: May 5, 2021

REMANDED

An increased rating in excess of 60 percent for allergic asthma is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from January 2, 1974 to January 25, 1974.

This appeal arises from a May 2015 rating decision, denying a claim for an increased rating in excess of 60 percent for allergic asthma and a TDIU.

The Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing in December 2020, before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  A transcript is of record.     

1. An increased rating in excess of 60 percent for allergic asthma.

The record contains medical treatment records from the Sky Lakes Medical Center, for Dr. H.S., dated through July 2019.  Subsequently, at his Board hearing in December 2020, the Veteran testified to receiving ongoing asthma treatment, twice a year, from a physician at the Sky Lakes Hospital.  Thus, the Board must remand for the AOJ to obtain any outstanding private treatment records.  

Further, the AOJ should also readjudicate the claim in light of another VA respiratory examination in September 2019 that was associated with the record after the last Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in April 2019.    

2. Entitlement to a TDIU.

The asthma claim is inextricably intertwined with the TDIU claim, inasmuch as both concern the occupational impairment due to the service-connected allergic asthma disability.  See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are "inextricably intertwined" when they are so closely tied together that a final decision on one issue cannot be rendered until a decision on the other issue has been rendered).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of any medical provider, VA or private, who has treated him for his respiratory disability.  After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified that are not duplicates of those already contained in the claims file.  

Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records, including at White City, Oregon VAMC, from December 2019 to the present.  

If any requested records are unavailable, the claims file should be annotated as such and the Veteran and his representative notified of such.

2.  Then readjudicate the claims, including consideration of the September 2019 VA respiratory examination and any additional medical records associated with the claims file.  

If these claims are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate time for response.

 

 

C. CRAWFORD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Biswajit Chatterjee, 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.