Citation Nr: 21031778
Decision Date: 05/24/21	Archive Date: 05/24/21

DOCKET NO. 13-10 385
DATE: May 24, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to July 28, 2016, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1976 to January 1985. The claim was previously remanded by the Board in January 2021; however, there has not been substantial compliance with the remand directives and the claim must be remanded again. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

The Board remanded this matter, in part, to obtain a retrospective medical opinion from a VA clinician assessing any occupational impairments the Veteran suffered prior to July 28, 2016. However, the opinions obtained in February 2021 and March 2021 fail to provide any independent assessment of the extent of the Veteran's impairment during this period due to his service-connected bilateral knee and ankle disabilities. Instead, the VA examiner simply pasted into her March 2021 addendum report variations of the same standardized text explaining the definition of "light work". Remand is needed to obtain a retrospective opinion that complies with the January 2021 Board remand instructions.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Forward the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate examiner  preferably an orthopedic surgeon or a vocational rehabilitation specialist  to provide a retrospective opinion regarding the impact of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his ability to work for the period prior to July 28, 2016. An in-person examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. 

Based on a review of the claims file, the examiner must, for the period prior to July 28, 2016, provide a functional assessment of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities (total right knee replacement, bilateral ankle strain, bilateral knee internal derangement, and left knee traumatic arthritis with limited motion) and his ability to work consistent with his education and occupational experience, and without consideration of his age or non-service-connected disabilities. The examiner should take into consideration the contemporaneous medical evidence of record when providing the requested opinion.

The VA clinician is requested to provide a thorough rationale for any opinion provided. If the clinician is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the clinician should explain why a definitive opinion cannot be provided.

 

 

M. E. Larkin

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Komperda, 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.