Citation Nr: 23001041
Decision Date: 01/06/23	Archive Date: 01/06/23

DOCKET NO. 18-31 701
DATE: January 6, 2023

REMAND

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1973 to March 1975.

In May 2020, the Board determined that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU rating was before the Board as part of a claim for an increased rating for a service-connected left foot disorder.  See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009).  The Board remanded the claim for entitlement to a TDIU rating with the following instruction:

Contact the Veteran, via a 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) notice letter addressing his TDIU claim and furnish the Veteran a VA form 21-8940.  Complete any development and adjudication warranted by the Veteran's response.

In May 2020, the AOJ complied with the instruction, sending the Appellant a letter and TDIU application form, but the Appellant did not respond.  The duty to assist the Appellant in the development of evidence pertinent to the claim is not a "one-way street," and failure to provide the necessary information within his possession prevents VA from assisting him in this matter.  Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991).  

Nonetheless, the Veteran's VA clinic record include his report of receiving Social Security benefits which limits the amount of income be can earn.  The Board must remand this case to obtain any records related to disability benefits from the Social Security Administration which are relevant to the TDIU claim on appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is remanded for the following:

Associate with the claims folder medical and legal documents pertaining to any award of disability benefits with the Social Security Administration.

. 

 

T. MAINELLI

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C. Howell, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.