Citation Nr: 1328283 Decision Date: 09/05/13 Archive Date: 09/16/13 DOCKET NO. 10-05 888 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increase in the 30 percent evaluation currently assigned for major depression. 2. Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher Maynard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from August 1974 to August 1978 and from October 1990 to March 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the RO which denied the benefits sought on appeal. The additional issue of entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability (TDIU) has been raised by evidence of record, but has not been developed for appellate review. As this issue is inextricably intertwined with the claim for increase, additional development must be undertaken. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND Although further delay is regrettable, the Board finds that additional development must be accomplished prior to further appellate review. In letters received in June and August 2011, the Veteran reported that his major depression had worsened and that he has taken a medical retirement due to his service-connected psychiatric disorder. The evidentiary record shows that the Veteran was last examined by VA more than three years ago, and that the most recent VA outpatient report of record was in August 2011. Given the Veteran's allegations of worsening psychiatric symptoms and forced early retirement due to his psychiatric disorder, the Board finds that a more current, comprehensive examination should be undertaken prior to appellate review. Finally, pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), VA must address the issue of entitlement to a TDIU in increased-rating claims when the issue of unemployability is raised by the record. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AMC should obtain all VA treatment records since August 2011 - the most recent VA treatment report of record, and associate them with the claims file. The Veteran should also be asked to provide VA with all personnel and medical records pertaining to his early disability retirement. All attempts to procure records should be documented in the file, and the Veteran should be notified of unsuccessful efforts in this regard. 2. The Veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the current severity of his service- connected major depression. The claims folder should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner, and a notation to the effect that this record review took place should be included in the report. All appropriate testing should be conducted. The examiner provide a response to the following: a) Provide a detailed description of the Veteran's psychiatric symptomatology and an opinion concerning the degree of social and industrial impairment resulting from his major depression. b) The examiner is specifically requested to include an Axis V assessment in the diagnostic formulation (GAF Scale) pertaining to the symptomatology associated with the Veteran's major depression, and an explanation of what the assigned score represents. c) The examiner should opine as to whether, without regard to the Veteran's age or the impact of any nonservice- connected disability, it is at least as likely as not that his service-connected disabilities, either alone or in the aggregate, render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful employment. The examiner must provide a clear rationale for all opinions, to include a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved. If a requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 3. After the requested development has been completed, the AMC should readjudicate the claim. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The Veteran need take no action unless otherwise notified. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ WAYNE M. BRAEUER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).