Citation Nr: 25009147 Decision Date: 07/14/25 Archive Date: 07/14/25 DOCKET NO. 19-22 459A DATE: July 14, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1990 to July 1996 and from February 2009 to March 2010. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2023 decision of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), In a March 2024 decision, the Board denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran subsequently appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court.) In a February 2025 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) of the parties and remanded the case to the Board for action consistent with the JMPR 1. Entitlement to a TDIU. The parties to the January 2025 JMPR agreed that the March 2024 Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that a TDIU was not warranted. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). Namely, the parties agreed that the Board only addressed the potential individual effects of the Veteran's disabilities and failed to address the interrelationship of all of his disabilities on his ability to secure and follow substantial employment. See Floore v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 376, 381 (2013). Although relevant VA examinations of record discussing the Veteran's service-connected conditions separately are of record, there is no opinion regarding the combined effects of these disabilities. The Board notes that, although a combined effects VA examination is not required to address a TDIU claim, in this case, the evidence of record is still unclear as to the Veteran's capacity to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Floore, 26 Vet. App. at 376 (finding that a combined effects opinion is not required per se but may be necessary to sufficiently address a TDIU claim). The Board acknowledges that the evidence of record contains a July 2020 private vocational assessment by S.B, a vocational consultant. After review of the Veteran's occupational history, educational history, and VA medical records, S.B. concluded that the Veteran was completely occupationally disabled. However, the Board notes that the S.B. identified and considered both service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities as the basis for her opinion. As such, the Board finds that the private vocational assessment is not adequate to support the grant of a TDIU. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that remand is warranted so that an opinion addressing the combined effects of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his ability to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment may be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claims file and a copy of this REMAND to an appropriate examiner to provide an addendum opinion as to the combined functional impact of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his ability to obtain and follow substantially gainful employment. It is the sole discretion of the examiner if a new examination is necessary. The examiner should identify the functional impairment of the combined effects of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including left elbow bursitis, anxiety disorder, migraine headaches, left shoulder impingement syndrome, lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, left knee medial meniscal tear, left lower extremity radiculopathy, and obstructive lung disease, taking into consideration his education and occupational experience, but not the effects of age and any nonservice-connected disabilities. Information such as the functional impairment in his ability to hear, stand, walk, lift, carry, sit, concentrate, etc., as well as the impact of any medications taken for his service-connected disabilities should be indicated. The examiner should also consider and address the July 2020 private vocational assessment of record. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided citing to supporting clinical data and medical literature as appropriate. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, he/she should explain why an opinion cannot be provided. (continued on next page) ? 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. B. D. WATSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Williams, Lauren 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.