Citation Nr: 18142174 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/12/18 DOCKET NO. 09-31 802 DATE: October 16, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1969 to July 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. Where a claimant, or the record, raises the question of unemployability due to the disability for which an increased rating is sought, then part of the increased rating claim is an implied claim for TDIU. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Here, the Board finds the issue of entitlement to TDIU was raised by testimony at the hearing before the undersigned; therefore, the issue is added to the issues on appeal. 1. Increased Rating for PTSD is Remanded. The Veteran was last afforded a VA examination of his PTSD in March 2018. However, the Veteran has submitted additional records noting a worsening of his condition. See March 2018 TDIU Vocational Assessment by Z. T. F., C.R.C.. The March 2018 assessment also reports additional symptomatology, including panic attacks 3-4 times a week. Moreover, Social Security Administration (SSA) records are now of record, and should be considered by the VA examiner upon remand. Therefore, pertaining to the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating of his service-connected PTSD, the Board finds that an additional VA examination should be afforded to assess the current nature, extent, and severity of his disability. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is Remanded. As noted above, a request for a TDIU is not a separate claim for benefits, but rather involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability as part of a claim for increased compensation. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). The Veteran has attributed his inability to work to his service-connected disabilities, to include his service-connected PTSD. Hence, the Veteran’s claim for an increased disability rating for service-connected PTSD includes consideration of whether a TDIU is warranted under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a) (2017), and such issues are inextricably intertwined. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision on one issue cannot be rendered until the other issue has been considered). Both issues are remanded for further development and evaluation. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records. 2. Thereafter, the RO should schedule an appropriate VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric disabilities. The claims folder and this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examination report must reflect that such a review was undertaken. The examiner is directed to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD. The examiner is to describe the Veteran’s symptoms, and note the impact, if any, of the Veteran’s disorder on his social and industrial functioning. The examiner is to provide information concerning the functional impairment that results from the service-connected disability which may affect the Veteran’s ability to function and perform tasks, to include any functional impairment of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities with regard to his employment. The examiner is directed to review the additional medical records, to include SSA records and the March 2018 TDIU Vocational Assessment by Z. T. F., C.R.C. (noting 3-4 panic attacks per week). 3. After completing any further development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit on appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to the Veteran and his representative, and allow an appropriate time for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. Michael Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jamie Tunis, Associate Counsel