Citation Nr: 18141954 Decision Date: 10/12/18 Archive Date: 10/12/18 DOCKET NO. 15-35 345A DATE: October 12, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for panic disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to November 1972. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision rendered by the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In the case of Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (Court) held, in substance, that every claim for a higher evaluation includes a claim for TDIU where the Veteran claims that his service-connected disability prevents him from working. In this case, the Board notes that the Veteran has put forth statements indicating that he believes his service-connected panic disorder renders him unemployable. See a statement from the Veteran dated March 2018. Accordingly, in light of the holding in Rice, the issue on appeal includes entitlement to TDIU. Higher evaluation for panic disorder and TDIU are remanded. A review of the record reveals that the Veteran is in receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. See, e.g., a September 2015 VA examination report. There is no indication in the record that any attempts have been made to obtain records in conjunction with the Veteran’s claim for SSA disability benefits and, indeed, his SSA records are not currently in the claims file. Therefore, on remand, any determination pertinent to the Veteran’s claim for SSA benefits, as well as any medical records relied upon concerning that claim, should be obtained. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 369-70 (1992) (where VA has actual notice of the existence of records held by SSA which appear relevant to a pending claim, VA has a duty to assist by requesting those records from SSA). The Board notes that the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination for his panic disorder in September 2015. The Board further notes that a statement from M.C., M.D., dated January 2018 indicates the Veteran evidences symptoms from his panic disorder which include social isolation, inability to adapt to stressful circumstances, impaired impulse control, and inability to function in an occupational environment. Notably, the only symptoms from the Veteran’s panic disorder documented during the September 2015 VA examination were anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that a contemporaneous VA examination is warranted to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran’s panic disorder. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997) [a veteran is entitled to a new VA examination where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since the last examination]. Additionally, under Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), a claim for TDIU is part of an increased rating claim when such is raised by the record. As noted in the Introduction above, it appears the Veteran has raised a claim for a TDIU based on his service-connected panic disorder. On remand, the AOJ should take any appropriate action deemed necessary to adjudicate his claim as the Veteran has already submitted a VA form 21-8940 application for TDIU. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the SSA to provide copies of any records pertaining to the Veteran’s application for SSA disability benefits, if any, to include any medical records obtained in connection with the application. Any materials obtained should be associated with the Veteran’s VA claims folder. If, after continued efforts to obtain Federal records the AOJ concludes that it is reasonably certain they do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, the Veteran should be notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). The Veteran must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Thereafter, provide the Veteran with an appropriate VA examination to determine the current symptoms and severity of his service-connected panic disorder. 3. Review the claims file to ensure that all the foregoing requested development is completed, and arrange for any additional development indicated. Then readjudicate the   claims on appeal. If the benefits sought remain denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and provide the Veteran and his attorney with the requisite period of time to respond. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Arif Syed, Counsel