Citation Nr: 21042396 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-60 935 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1966 to June 1968. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously remanded the case in December 2018 to enable to RO to fulfill its duty to assist, to include obtaining relevant records and scheduling the Veteran for a new VA examination to assess the current severity of his hearing loss disability. Although the Board's remand directives have been substantially completed, an additional remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Veteran has raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU and maintains that he is incapable of securing and maintaining substantially gainful employment due to his service-connected disabilities. A claim for a TDIU is part of an increased rating claim when such claim is expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The Board also notes that the Veteran has described mental and sleep functional impairments he attributes to his service-connected hearing loss and tinnitus. The Board therefore refers the matters of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and a sleep disorder, as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected hearing loss or tinnitus to the RO for any action deemed appropriate. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss 2. Entitlement to a TDIU While the Board regrets further delay, a remand is necessary to correct duty to assist errors. The Veteran contends that his hearing loss has continued to worsen since his November 2019 VA examination. See July 2020 Correspondence. He also contends that he lost his job because of his hearing loss disability. See April 2019 Correspondence. He claims that his hearing loss renders him unable to successfully apply for and secure good paying jobs that are commensurate with his education and work experience. See April 2018 Motion to Advance on Docket. Based on the foregoing, the Veteran should be provided with an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his bilateral hearing loss and resulting impairment. Also, the Veteran should be afforded with appropriate notice and assistance in developing his TDIU claim. Finally, the Board notes that a VA audiology note from the Palm Desert CBOC indicates the Veteran underwent an audiogram in July 2016. However, the complete audiogram report is not of record. A remand is necessary to obtain outstanding VA treatment records, to include the July 2016 audiogram report. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all the Veteran's outstanding VA treatment records through the present date, including the July 2016 audiogram report, and associate the records with the Veteran's claims file. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete and submit a VA Form 21-8940, Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician regarding the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should also elicit from the Veteran his complete educational, vocational, and employment history and should note his complaints regarding the impact of his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus on employment. The examiner should identify all limitations or functional impairment caused solely by the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jones, Catherine J. 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.