Citation Nr: 21032676 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 10-27 798 DATE: May 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from October 1967 to August 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 2009 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. In September 2017, the Board denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a May 2018 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court vacated the September 2017 Board decision in relevant part and remanded the matter to the Board for additional action. In September 2018, the Board again denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran again appealed the matter to the Court, which vacated the September 2018 Board decision in an April 2019 JMR and remanded the matter to the Board. The Board then remanded the matter to the RO for additional development in April 2019 and October 2020 decisions. The matter has now returned to the Board for further appellate review. This matter has previously been advanced on the Board's docket. 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c);38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) 1. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. While the Board sincerely regrets additional delay in adjudicating the Veteran's claim for a TDIU, the matter must be remanded so that the Veteran may be afforded substantial compliance with previous remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11Vet. App.268, 271 (1998). Pursuant to the October 2020 Board remand decision, the Veteran received VA examinations regarding the functional limitations of his service-connected disabilities in January 2021. The August 2019 and October 2020 remands both specifically instructed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain updated examinations as to the Veteran's current disorders and further specified that all opinions rendered should be reconciled with a March 2009 opinion issued by Dr. N.O., as pertaining to the Veteran's "epilepsy and nervous disease." While the January 2021 examiners acknowledged the March 2009 opinion, they only discussed the opinion in context with the Veteran's seizure disorder. The examiners wholly failed to discuss the psychiatric symptomatology discussed in the March 2009 opinion. Further, the October 2020 Board remand specifically requested that the examiner address relevance of the July 2020 examination regarding the Veteran's claimed seizure disorder (epilepsy), as well as a lay statement by the Veteran's former colleague from employment at the United States Post Office. While these items were acknowledged by the January 2021 examiners, the examiners did not discuss the contents of these items nor their relevance to the Veteran's functional limitations caused by service-connected disabilities. From the foregoing, the Board finds that remand is necessary to obtain an opinion regarding the Veteran's symptomatology throughout the period on appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran a VA examination with an examiner of appropriate expertise to address what functional impairment the Veteran's service-connected disabilities have on his ability to secure or follow substantially gainful employment. On remand, the examiner must consider the Veteran's schizophrenia and seizure disorder as one disability, because they arise from one common etiology. 38C.F.R. §4.16(a). The examiner must review the record and should note that review in the report. A rationale for all opinions should be provided. The examiner's opinion should address the following: (a.) The examiner is asked to comment on and describe the functional impairment caused solely by the service-connected disabilities as it pertains to the Veteran's ability to function in an occupational environment. The examiner should, for instance, describe the limitations and restrictions imposed by his service-connected impairments on such work activities. (b.) If the Veteran is felt capable of work despite the service-connected disabilities, the examiner should describe what type of work and what accommodations, if any, would be necessary due to the service-connected disabilities. All opinions rendered should be reconciled with Dr. N.O.'s March 2009 opinion and should specifically discuss the Veteran's symptomatology and functional limitations throughout the period on appeal. The examiner is also specifically asked to address the relevance (or lack thereof) of the following: (a.) Dr. T.S.S-R.'s July 2020 opinion pertaining to the Veteran's epilepsy disorder as affecting entitlement to a TDIU; (b.) A September 2019 lay statement from G.E.N., the Veteran's colleague from employment at the United States Post Office. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Gorum, Associate 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.