Citation Nr: 22015585 Decision Date: 03/18/22 Archive Date: 03/18/22 DOCKET NO. 17-23 557 DATE: March 18, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent from April 26, 2013, and 60 percent from April 22, 2017, for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1982 to February 1983. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia. The Veteran was scheduled for an October 2021 hearing on these issues before the Board. He did not appear for the hearing for which notice was previously sent. Since then, the Veteran has neither requested a new hearing, nor provided good cause for his absence. As such, the Veteran's hearing request is considered to have been withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704. 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent from April 26, 2013, and 60 percent from April 22, 2017, for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Board observes that following the Agency of Original Jurisdiction's (AOJ) issuance of an April 2017 Statement of the Case (SOC) and May 2017 certification to the Board, additional treatment records, social security administration records, and VA examinations were added to the claims file. To date, the additional evidence has not yet been considered by the AOJ. Accordingly, the Board sent the Veteran a letter in January 2022 informing him of the option to either waive AOJ review of the additional evidence or remand the case back to the AOJ for review in the first instance. In February 2022, the Veteran responded that he wanted the case sent back to the AOJ for review of the additional evidence. Based on the above, remand is necessary for the AOJ to initially consider the additional evidence and readjudicate the claims on appeal. 3. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. Upon review, the Board finds TDIU is inferred based on the evidence of record. Specifically, as part of a January 2018 NOD, the Veteran contended that his service-connected hearing loss and tinnitus impact his ability to obtain and / or maintain substantially gainful employment. During the March 2014 VA examination, the Veteran stated that his hearing loss and tinnitus prevent him from being able to hear instructions from supervisors and co-workers. Accordingly, the Board finds the issue of TDIU was reasonably raised from the evidentiary record and is within the jurisdiction of the Board. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-55 (2009). Despite the Veteran's claim, the AOJ did not notify him of the evidence required to substantiate a TDIU claim and did not solicit an employment and payment history to determine whether he was eligible for TDIU. Based upon review of the record, development of this claim needs to be completed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Veteran a notice letter, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), which advises him of the information needed to substantiate a claim for TDIU. In addition, ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-8940 (Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability) to obtain relevant employment information. 2. Review the entirety of the evidence of record, specifically to include evidence added since the April 2017 SOC, and readjudicate the claims. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.C. Allen, 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.