Citation Nr: 21032866 Decision Date: 05/28/21 Archive Date: 05/28/21 DOCKET NO. 12-01 353 DATE: May 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) as a result of service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from October 1962 to October 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision by the Nashville, Tennessee Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. In January 2020, the Board denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran appealed the denial of entitlement to a TDIU to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Counsel for the Veteran and the Secretary of VA (the parties) filed a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) dated in December 2020. The parties agreed that the Board's January 2020 denial should be vacated and remanded because the Board erred when it did not provide an adequate statement of the reasons and bases for the denial, to include all due consideration given to a July 2009 VA examination report and statements in the medical records noting therapy used for pain control. 1. TDIU is remanded The Veteran contends that he is entitled to TDIU benefits due to his service-connected left knee disability and now service-connected unspecified mood disorder. See May 2009 VA Form 21-8940; see also October 2020 VA Form 21-526EZ. Specifically, as it pertains to the psychiatric disability, the Veteran states that his symptoms are due to physical pain from his knee issues. See also October 2020 VA Mental Disorders Examination. In relevant part, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination of the left knee in July 2009. See July 2009 VA Joints Examination. The examiner noted the Veteran's limitations due to the left knee disability included that he was able to stand up to one hour and could walk more than 14 mile but must take frequent breaks. Further, the examiner noted the Veteran required the intermittent, but frequent, use of a cane. It was concluded that the Veteran is unable to work in any capacity that involves lifting or any activity that involves walking more than 150 feet due to limited mobility and strength in his knee. Therefore, the examiner stated the Veteran was best suited for sedentary duty. Since that July 2009 examination, the Veteran has established his entitlement to service-connection for unspecified mood disorder on a secondary basis to his left knee disability. However, no comment as to the impact of this disability on his ability to obtain or maintain substantially gainful employment. Therefore, a remand for an addendum opinion is required. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate medical professional to determine if it is at least as likely as not (a degree of probability of 50 percent or higher) that the Veteran is precluded from substantially gainful employment on account of his service-connected disabilities (left knee and unspecified mood disorder) alone and in combination. In other words, what is the functional impact of the Veteran's service-connected disability on his employability. In making this determination, the person should take into account the Veteran's education and work history, but may NOT consider the Veteran's age or any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. 2. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. 3. IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Berry, 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.