Citation Nr: 18139895 Decision Date: 10/01/18 Archive Date: 10/01/18 DOCKET NO. 16-26 635 DATE: October 1, 2018 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for service-connected bipolar II disorder is remanded. The claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had verified service from January 2004 to July 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for bipolar II disorder. Remand is required for an updated examination. When a claimant asserts, or the evidence shows, that the severity of a disability has increased since the most recent rating examination, an additional examination is appropriate. VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (April 7, 1995); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). The Veteran was last provided an examination for her psychiatric disorder in April 2016. In a statement received in May 2018, she indicated that she was fired from her job and that her psychiatric disorder had worsened. The Board finds that an updated examination is necessary to ascertain the present severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric disability. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU Next, remand is required regarding TDIU for development of the claim. If the claimant or the record reasonably raises the question of whether the Veteran is unemployable due to a disability for which an increased rating is sought, then part and parcel to that claim for an increased rating is whether a TDIU as a result of that disability is warranted. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In this case, the Veteran asserted a May 2018 statement that her psychiatric disability had resulted in her being fired from her employment. It also precluded further employment. Therefore, the AOJ should develop a claim for TDIU. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain verification of the Veteran’s active duty and associate it with the claims file. The claims file only contains a DD-214 for the period of service from January 2004 to July 2005, although RO documents indicate service from 2000. Official verification, therefore, must be obtained. 2. Contact the appropriate VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his or her representative. 3. Develop the issue of entitlement to TDIU under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16, based on impairment attributable to the Veteran’s service-connected disorder, in accordance with Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In so doing, the AOJ may decide to pursue further development of the Veteran’s employment history or to obtain additional medical evidence or medical opinion, as is deemed necessary. 4. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, provide the Veteran with an appropriate examination to determine the severity of the service-connected bipolar disorder. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The relevant Disability Benefits Questionnaire must be utilized. 5. Notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim, and that the consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2017). In the event that the Veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It must also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Steve Ginski, Associate Counsel