Citation Nr: 18141964
Decision Date: 10/12/18	Archive Date: 10/12/18

DOCKET NO. 14-19 534
DATE:	October 12, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prior to August 14, 2014, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter is remanded.
Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to August 14, 2014 is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active service from July 1964 to June 1971 and from April 1975 to July 1984.
1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD prior to August 14, 2014, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter.
The Veteran contends that his service-connected PTSD is more disabling than currently evaluated. After a review of the record, the Board finds that a remand of this claim is required to allow for further development.
The Veteran’s PTSD is currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling from January 31, 2011 and as 70 percent disabling from August 14, 2014. In the July 2018 informal hearing presentation, the Veteran, through his representative, indicated that his condition continues to worsen and its severity is no longer accurately reflected by his last VA examination in July 2015.
When a claimant alleges that his or her service-connected disability has worsened since the last examination, a new examination may be required to evaluate the current degree of impairment. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 526 (1995) (where the record does not adequately reveal current state of claimant’s disability, fulfillment of statutory duty to assist requires a contemporaneous medical examination - particularly if there is no additional medical evidence that adequately addresses the level of impairment of the disability since the previous examination); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994).
While a new examination is not required simply because of the time which has passed since the last examination, VA’s General Counsel has indicated that a new examination is appropriate when there is an assertion of an increase in severity since the last examination. VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Consequently, a new examination is warranted for the purpose of determining the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD.
2. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to August 14, 2014
In July 2013, the Veteran indicated that he was filing for individual unemployability due to his PTSD, and in March 2014, the Veteran submitted an application for TDIU asserting that he is unemployable due to his PTSD. The Veteran was granted a TDIU effective August 14, 2014, the date he met the schedular criteria for TDIU. The Board finds that the claim for TDIU prior to August 14, 2014 is before the Board as part and parcel of the appeal of the rating for PTSD. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009).
The Board finds that the Veteran’s claim for TDIU prior to August 14, 2014 is inextricably intertwined with his claim on appeal for a higher rating for service-connected PTSD. Therefore, the appropriate remedy where a pending claim is inextricably intertwined with a claim currently on appeal is to remand the claim on appeal pending the adjudication of the inextricably intertwined claim. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991).
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file.
2. Ensure that the Veteran is scheduled for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current nature and extent of his service-connected PTSD. The examiner must review the claims file in conjunction with the examination.
The examiner is requested to identify the nature, frequency, and severity of all current manifestations of PTSD. The examiner must also comment on any functional impairment caused by the Veteran’s PTSD. 
A complete rationale for all opinions expressed is required.
 
ERIC S. LEBOFF
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Labi, Associate Counsel