Citation Nr: 18141979 Decision Date: 10/12/18 Archive Date: 10/12/18 DOCKET NO. 08-09 496 DATE: October 12, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent disabling for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from November 1968 to August 1970, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam and his decorations include the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Purple Heart Medal. In January 2010 the Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. However, in a November 2014 statement, the Veteran withdrew his request. In October 2015, the Board denied several of the Veteran’s claims. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Veterans claims (Court). In a November 2016 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacating the Board’s October 2015 decision and remanding the case to the Board for action consistent with the JMR. In October 2017, the Board readjudicated the claims, and remanded several issues to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development and adjudication. In addition, the Board granted a 50 percent disability rating but no higher, for the entire appeal period, for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD. The Veteran, subsequently appealed the Board’s decision not to grant a higher rating. The Court in a May 2018 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) remanded the claim for an increased rating back to the Board for further adjudication. As noted in October 2017, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claims for service connection for degenerative cervical joint/disc disease, left upper extremity radiculopathy and right upper extremity radiculopathy. In January 2018, the AOJ granted the Veteran’s claims in full. As the Veteran has not disagreed with the assigned ratings or effective dates, such claims are no longer before the Board. Furthermore, the Board finds that the AOJ has substantially complied with the remand orders of the Board’s October 2017 remand, and no further action is necessary as pertains to the issues of service connection for degenerative cervical joint/disc disease and bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy. See D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (remand not required under Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998), where the Board’s remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff’d, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002). Finally, the Board notes that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU was also remanded in October 2017. While the RO has not readjudicated the issue, the Board notes that, in pursuing a higher rating for PTSD, the Veteran has alleged that such is the main disability which renders him unable to work. Consequently, the matter of entitlement to a TDIU rating is reasonably raised by the record in the context of the increased rating claim. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2009). Furthermore, as the Board is remanding both claims, no prejudice will befall the Veteran and the AOJ will have ample opportunity to adjudicate the claim. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent disabling for service-connected PTSD is remanded. Relevant to the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD, the Court has held that, where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of claimant’s disability, fulfillment of the 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 last examination. Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 526 (1995). The record reflects that the Veteran was most recently afforded a VA Mental Health examination in August 2016 and that the Veteran’s representative provided a private evaluation in May 2017. The Board finds that a contemporaneous examination is necessary as the Veteran has alleged significantly worsening symptoms since his last VA examination. Specifically, the Veteran has alleged that his condition is far worse than is represented by his current rating, including possible suicidal ideation. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is required in order to determine the Veteran’s current level of impairment with regard to his service-connected PTSD. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Entitlement to a TDIU due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. The Board finds that the claim for entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim for an increased rating for PTSD remanded herein. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) (en banc) (explaining that claims are inextricably intertwined where the adjudication of one claim could have a significant impact on the adjudication of another claim); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Due to the amount of time which will pass on remand, updated treatment records should be obtained and associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The claims file should be reviewed by the examiner. Any tests deemed necessary should be conducted, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should indicate the impact of the disorder on the Veteran’s occupational and social functioning as well as his ability to complete physical and/or sedentary work. A detailed explanation (rationale) is requested for all opinions provided. (By law, the Board is not permitted to rely on any conclusion that is not supported by a thorough explanation. Providing an opinion or conclusion without a thorough explanation will delay processing of the claim and may also result in a clarification being requested). L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Unger, Associate Counsel