Citation Nr: 21032338 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 19-15 716A DATE: May 26, 2021 ORDER A total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not preclude him from obtaining or maintaining gainful employment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from July 1965 to July 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2018 rating decision. It was previously remanded in March 2020. TDIU A TDIU may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the claimant is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation because of a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or because of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). Prior to February 23, 2018, the Veteran was service-connected for coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy of all four extremities, lumbar strain, and bilateral hearing loss. His coronary artery disease was rated at 60 percent and his combined rating was 90 percent. Therefore, he met the schedular criteria for a TDIU. From February 23, 2018, he is also service-connected for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rated at 70 percent. This increased his combined rating to 100 percent. In such cases, a TDIU based on the Veteran's combined disabilities is moot, but consideration of a TDIU based on a single disability is still necessary. Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008) (holding that, while no additional disability compensation may be paid when a total schedular disability rating is already in effect, a separate award of a TDIU predicated on a single disability may form the basis for an award of special monthly compensation). In a May 2019 TDIU application form, the Veteran indicated that he had a high school education and worked as a driver for the judicial system in Puerto Rico from November 1983 to February 1995. During a December 2020 VA examination, he also noted that prior to being a driver, he worked as a mechanic and in construction. Regarding functional impairment, VA treatment records from March 2019 show the Veteran traveled using public transportation or driving his own car. In July 2019, he drove himself to the hospital after experiencing palpitations. This establishes that he is still capable of driving. The Board acknowledges a difference between driving for personal purposes versus driving as employment. However, the remaining evidence does not show any significant functional impairment that would interfere with occupational driving. VA examinations from June 2016 stated that his diabetic neuropathy would limit standing, and his lumbar spine disability would limit carrying objects more than 20 pounds. A March 2018 VA examination noted that the Veteran's heart disability permitted a level of exertion consistent with light yard work, using a power mower, or brisk walking. There is no indication that these limitations would preclude the Veteran from being employed as a driver. Collectively, the evidence does not show that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities prevented him from performing the mental and physical acts associated with his prior occupation prior to February 23, 2018, or that any single disability prevented such acts after that date. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993) (the main question in determining whether a TDIU is warranted is whether a veteran can perform the physical and mental acts required by employment). Therefore, a TDIU is not warranted. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Shamil Patel, 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.