Citation Nr: 24004366 Decision Date: 01/29/24 Archive Date: 01/29/24 DOCKET NO. 20-24 316 DATE: January 29, 2024 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) from December 22, 2017, is dismissed as moot. REMANDED Entitlement to a TDIU from February 10, 2017, to December 22, 2017, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT From December 22, 2017, the Veteran is in receipt of a 100 percent schedular rating for a single disability and special monthly compensation (SMC) at the housebound rate under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s). CONCLUSION OF LAW The Veteran's appeal for a TDIU from December 22, 2017, is dismissed as moot. 38 U.S.C. § 1114; 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1971 to June 1974 and was separated from service under honorable conditions. The Veteran is in receipt of many honors and medals, including the Vietnam Service Medal, the Combat Infantry Badge, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device 60. The Veteran additionally served on active duty from October 1981 to April 1983 and was separated from service under other than honorable conditions. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A November 2019 statement from the Veteran indicated that he wanted to withdraw his notice of disagreement (NOD) for his TDIU claim. However, the Veteran's representative submitted a substantive appeal for the matter of TDIU in May 2020, and the appeal was certified to the Board in May 2020. In a November 2023 letter, the Board asked for clarification from the Veteran regarding his intentions. In a November 2023 letter, the Veteran's representative indicated that the Veteran wanted to continue his appeal to the Board. As such, the Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the matter. A claim for a TDIU is not a separate claim for benefits. In Rice v. Shinseki, the Court held that a claim for a TDIU is "part of the claim for benefits of the underlying disability" regardless of whether the claim is raised expressly or reasonably raised by the record. 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). As such, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU under Rice is not limited to claims reasonably raised by the record. Thus, the Board must adjudicate any claim for a TDIU in accordance with Rice when it has been raised during the initial adjudication of a claim or a claim for an increased rating for an underlying disability. Here, prior to the Veteran filing a claim for TDIU in May 2018, TDIU was raised by the record during the pendency of the initial adjudication of the Veteran's March 2017 mental health disorder claim. The Veteran filed a claim for a mental health disorder in March 2017, and in an August 2017 VA PTSD examination report, the examiner indicated that the Veteran stated he works two days a week as a fireguard, and he was cut back from five days a week two years ago because he argues a lot and he was making mistakes, and these functional impairments are due to the effects of his mental disorder. In a November 2017 decision, the RO granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 70 percent evaluation from February 10, 2017. As such, the Board must consider whether a TDIU may be awarded from February 10, 2017, the effective date of the award of service connection for the PTSD. Entitlement to a TDIU from December 22, 2017, is dismissed as moot. In a May 2019 decision, the RO awarded the Veteran a 100 percent rating for his service-connected residuals of proctectomy from December 22, 2017, and also granted SMC at the housebound rating under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) beginning December 22, 2017. As such, further consideration of the issue of entitlement to a TDIU would serve no purpose. see Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). Accordingly, the Board dismisses the issue of entitlement to a TDIU from December 22, 2017, as moot. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to a TDIU from February 10, 2017, to December 22, 2017, is remanded. The Veteran seeks entitlement to a TDIU from February 10, 2017, to December 21, 2017. May 2017 VA treatment records noted that the Veteran was working two days a week as a fireguard at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. The August 2017 VA examiner stated that the Veteran works two days a week as a fireguard, and he was cut back from five days a week two years ago because he argues a lot and he was making mistakes, and the Veteran contends that this functional impairment is due to the effects of his mental disorder. A June 2018 VA examination report indicated that the Veteran reported that prior to being hospitalized in the fall of 2017, he worked two days a week as a fire guard at Columbia Presbyterian. In the Veteran's April 2019 TDIU claim he stated that he last worked full time on November 1, 2017, at Metro Fire Safety. The RO conducted development by sending a VA Form 21-4192 to Metro Fire Safety twice. According to its website, Metro Fire Safety is a consulting and staffing firm. As such, the Board finds that a remand is required in order to send a VA Form 21-4192 to New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center to request the Veteran's employment information. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Send a VA Form 21-4192, Request for Employment Information in Connection with a Claim for Disability Benefits, to the Veteran's identified former employer (New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center) and request that they return a completed form and any relevant documents. All evidence obtained must be associated with the claims folder. Jenna Brant Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ahuva D. Sunshine 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.