Citation Nr: 21027579 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 17-19 390 DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1954 to October 1956. In May 2019, the Veteran testified under oath at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In September 2020, the Board remanded this matter for additional development. For the reasons outlined below, the Board finds that remand is again needed. Entitlement to a TDIU. The Board finds that additional development is needed prior to final adjudication of the issue on appeal. First, the Board finds that there may be outstanding records to obtain and associate with the claim file. Inquiry results from the Social Security Administration (SSA), from January 2021, suggest that there may be outstanding records from SSA. Accordingly, any relevant records should be obtained upon remand. In addition, correspondence received from the Veteran in October 2020, suggests that he may not have received communications from VA pertaining to his appeal. He cites disruptions in his family due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Accordingly, upon remand, the Board asks that it be determined which communications the Veteran did not receive. Thereafter, the Veteran should be provided those communications and be given an appropriate period to respond. In addition, provide the Veteran with a new VA Form 21-8940 and invite him to clarify any periods of employment. The Board notes that the Veteran testified at the May 2019 videoconference hearing that he "used to be a basketball referee, college level . . . ." However, this information is not listed on the October 2015, VA Form 21-8940. Also, in a March 2020 VA examination, it was noted that the apartment building the Veteran owns "is up for sale at present, because he is unable to manage it anymore . . . ." In October 2020 correspondence, the Veteran states that the rental housing "units are now under the care and control of a management company and not me." Upon remand, the Board asks for clarification of the status of these rental housing units, including the date when they came under "the care and control" of a management company. Finally, the Board finds that a new VA examination and opinion are needed. In the September 2020 remand, the Board asked that an examiner "address whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities." (Emphasis in original). The Board acknowledges that a VA opinion was obtained in February 2021. However, it does not appear that the opinion addressed the question of "whether it is at least as likely as not ..." Accordingly, the Board will remand for a new opinion. Further, the February 2021 opinion provides a list of findings noting what the Veteran "is not impaired in his ability to . . ." do. However, there is no supporting rationale for these findings provided. In addition, the opinion states: "It is unknown whether the claimant is impaired in his ability to work in an enclosed space/cubicle." However, it is unclear to the Board why this was determined to be "unknown." Accordingly, the Board finds that a new opinion is needed. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. After securing any necessary consent forms from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding treatment records, to include any VA and/or private treatment records, pertaining to the issue on appeal. In addition, obtain relevant records from the SSA pertaining to any application or award of disability benefits to the Veteran. In addition, determine which communications the Veteran has not received from VA, if any. Then provide the Veteran with any unreceived communications, and an appropriate period to respond. If the communications pertain to the January 2020 and September 2020 remand directives, these communications should be in compliance with those directives. In addition, provide the Veteran a new VA Form 21-8940 and invite him to clarify any periods of employment. The Board notes that the Veteran testified at the May 2019 videoconference hearing that he "used to be a basketball referee, college level . . .," but this information is not listed on the October 2015, VA Form 21-8940. In addition, request that the Veteran provide clarification of the status of his rental housing units, including the date when they came under "the care and control" of a management company. The Board notes that in a March 2020 VA examination, it was noted that the apartment building the Veteran owns "is up for sale at present, because he is unable to manage it anymore...." In October 2020 correspondence, the Veteran states that the rental housing "units are now under the care and control of a management company and not me." All efforts should be documented in the claim file. If any records could not be obtained, this should be noted in the claim file. 2. Upon completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination and obtain an opinion to address the impact of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his employability. The examiner is asked to address whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities. The VA examiner should be given access to the claim file. The examiner should state that a review of the claim file was completed. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached, citing the objective medical findings leading to the conclusions. A detailed rationale is requested for all opinions provided. 3. If upon completion of the above action the issue is denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Foster, 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.