Citation Nr: 21031542 Decision Date: 05/24/21 Archive Date: 05/24/21 DOCKET NO. 10-07 161 DATE: May 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on housebound status is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1971 to August 1973. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from August 2009 and September 2010 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a November 2012 hearing. The Board remanded these matters in February 2014 and September 2016 for additional development. The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for mental disabilities and TDIU in November 2017, and the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In a June 2019 Memorandum Decision, the CAVC remanded the claims to the Board to provide additional rationale for its findings. The Board granted the service connection claim and remanded the TDIU claim in September 2020 to assign a rating for the mental disabilities and readjudicate the TDIU claim. VA denied the TDIU claim in a November 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case because it did not receive additional TDIU paperwork it asked the Veteran to complete in an October 2020 letter. In April 2021, the Veteran and his attorney submitted additional information about the Veteran's employment history and a brief in support of the claim. They identified several jobs that the Veteran did not list on his July 2010 application. There are also some indications in the record that the Veteran engaged in additional work not listed on any of his forms. For example, a March 2009 Primary Care Note indicates the Veteran was self-employed, and a September 2012 Pain Consultation at Mountain Home VAMC indicates the Veteran was last employed three years prior. A December 2015 VA PTSD examiner noted the Veteran indicated that he worked over 30 jobs in one year. The Board finds VA should conduct additional development to verify the nature and extent of the Veteran's employment history. In addition to the above, the Veteran's attorney has requested that VA consider assigning TDIU based on the Veteran's PTSD alone and grant the Veteran entitlement to SMC based on housebound status (considering PTSD at 100 percent with the other disabilities independently rated at 60 percent or more). Under Payne v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 373, 383 (2019), special monthly compensation falls within the scope of an appeal of a disability rating. In light of Payne, VA should consider the TDIU and special monthly compensation claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. VA should contact the Veteran and all current representatives and request their assistance in identifying any outstanding relevant records. VA should make reasonable attempts to obtain all identified outstanding records and associate them with the Veteran's claims file. 2. VA should ask the Veteran to clarify his employment history including self-employment in light of several reports of work activity in 2009 in the record. For example, a March 2009 Primary Care Note indicates the Veteran was self-employed, and a September 2012 Pain Consultation at Mountain Home VAMC indicates the Veteran was last employed three years prior. A December 2015 VA PTSD examiner noted the Veteran indicated that he worked over 30 jobs in one year. VA should conduct necessary development to verify the employment history. 3. VA should readjudicate the TDIU claim and consider first whether PTSD alone prevented the Veteran from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment. If TDIU is warranted based on PTSD alone, VA should consider granting SMC at the housebound rate for a single disability rated at 100 percent (TDIU for PTSD) and additional disabilities independently rated at 60 percent or more. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.350. If PTSD does not warrant an award of TDIU by itself, VA should consider the effects of the other disabilities in its TDIU analysis. C. TRUEBA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Duffy, 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.