Citation Nr: 21029089 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 192 DATE: May 12, 2021 ORDER The issue of entitlement to service connection for chest pain dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for hyperhidrosis since April 18, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for major depressive disorder (MDD), recurrent, prior to November 26, 2019, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from February 2006 to November 2012. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for chest pain was granted in full in a March 2021 rating decision, which was issued after the Veteran's appeal had been recertified and transferred to the Board. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of the appeal for service connection for chest pain have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); § 19.55 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The appeal was previously before the Board in November 2018, at which time it was remanded for further development. It now returns to the Board for appellate review. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. The appeal for service connection for a disorder manifested by chest pain was granted by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in a March 2021 rating decision. While this decision was issued after the appeal was returned to the Board's docket and the AOJ no longer had jurisdiction over the appeal, as the decision was favorable to the Veteran, the Board determines that further appellate action on the merits of the appeal is rendered moot. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal for service connection for chest pain, and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND In addition to the above claims, in November 2018, the Board remanded issues of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder and entitlement to an increased rating for MDD. In a June 2020 rating decision, service connection for a back disability was granted, which was a full grant of the benefit sought. The June 2020 rating decision also increased the evaluation for MDD from 30 percent to 50 percent, effective November 26, 2019. However, this evaluation is not the maximum benefit available; thus, the appeal is still pending. No further action on the increased rating appeal has been taken by the AOJ, and as a result, the Veteran has not been afforded all due process required before the Board may proceed with appellate review of the issue. Specifically, no SSOC was issued for the MDD rating claim. Moreover, an October 2020 VA Social Work note stated that the Veteran had applied for SSDI, disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA), indicating that he had lost his job due to too many "write-ups." As this note suggests that the Veteran's SSA application and benefits (if granted) were related to his service-connected disabilities, any records associated with that application are relevant to the appeal and must be obtained. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 373 (1992); see also Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Finally, the Veteran's indication that his employment was impacted by his service-connected MDD, as well as his statement in May 2016 that his hyperhidrosis rendered him unemployable have raised a claim for a TDIU. As the claim has been raised in connection with the increased rating claims on appeal, it is within the Board's jurisdiction. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Therefore, the matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Undertake appropriate development to associate outstanding, relevant treatment notes with the claims file. 2. Obtain the documents associated with the Veteran's application for SSDI and any related determination rendered by the SSA. 3. Undertake the development necessary to adjudicate the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. 4. Considering any new evidence received, determine whether a second referral to the Director, Compensation Service for consideration of an extra-schedular rating for hyperhidrosis is warranted. 5. Provide the Veteran with an SSOC readjudicating the appeals, including entitlement to an increased rating for MDD and entitlement to a TDIU, in light of all evidence received since the prior adjudication of the claim by the AOJ. SCOTT W. DALE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. M. Schaefer, 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.