Citation Nr: 18147297 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-25 092 DATE: November 2, 2018 REMANDED An initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is remanded. Whether the reduction of the disability rating for prostate cancer from 100 percent to 40 percent effective January 1, 2013, was proper, is remanded. A disability rating in excess of 40 percent for prostate cancer effective January 1, 2013, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU).   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1964 to July 1968. The case is on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision. In the June 2011 rating decision, the Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for PTSD and awarded an initial 30 percent rating. In a February 2014 rating decision, the RO increased the PTSD rating to 50 percent. The Veteran’s claim of service connection for prostate cancer was initially granted in a January 2012 rating decision and a 100 percent rating was awarded. Thereafter, in an October 2012 rating decision, the RO reduced the prostate cancer rating to 20 percent, effective January 1, 2013. A May 2016 rating decision then increased the Veteran’s prostate cancer rating to 40 percent from January 1, 2013. Despite the interim increase to 40 percent, the Veteran’s initial disagreement was with the propriety of the reduction from 100 percent and with the disability rating assigned. Therefore, the reduction issue and increased rating issue both are on appeal. Dofflemyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 277, 279-80 (1992); see also Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 596 (1991) (“this is a reduction case, not an increase case”); Green v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 512 (2006) (citing Dofflemyer, 2 Vet. App. at 279-80). The TDIU issue is raised as part of the increased rating claim on appeal. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). 1. An initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD. Since the January 2011 VA examination, the Veteran has submitted lay evidence suggesting a possible worsening of his PTSD. The Veteran’s spouse submitted a statement in July 2018, which supports he may suffer from increased symptom severity, including delusional thoughts. She indicated an incident where during a rainstorm, the Veteran dug trenches to expel water. In a separate episode, she stated a nearby factory exploded and the Veteran made her stay in a motel. She noted he talks to himself, is highly distracted and can become irrationally angry. Additionally, a September 2018 brief was submitted by the Veteran’s representative in which he indicated the Veteran may endorse psychiatric symptoms of a 100 percent rating. He reported the evidence of record shows the Veteran has gross impairment in thought processes or communication, persistent delusions or hallucinations, and disorientation to time or place. He stated based on these symptoms consistent with a 100 percent rating, an increased rating is warranted. The most recent VA psychiatric examination was more than seven years ago and there is an indication of worsening PTSD symptoms since that time. As such, a new VA psychiatric examination is warranted to determine the current nature and severity of his psychiatric disability. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). 2. Whether the reduction of the disability rating for prostate cancer from 100 percent to 40 percent effective January 1, 2013, was proper. 3. A disability rating in excess of 40 percent for prostate cancer effective January 1, 2013. As issues 2-3 are related, the Board will address them together. The Veteran’s claim of service connection for prostate cancer was initially granted in the January 2012 rating decision and a 100 percent rating was awarded. Thereafter, in an October 2012 rating decision, the RO reduced the prostate cancer rating to 20 percent, effective January 1, 2013. The Veteran’s representative submitted a November 2012 statement construed as a notice of disagreement (NOD). Although the NOD was not submitted on the standard VA Form, this NOD was received prior to the amendments requiring an NOD to be submitted on a standard VA Form. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (2017) (effective March 24, 2015). The NOD expressed disagreement with both the propriety of the reduction and the percent assigned therefrom. When an NOD is submitted in response to a rating decision, a statement of the case (SOC) is necessary. Thus, the Board will remand the issue for an SOC. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(c); Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). 4. TDIU The development and decision on the remanded increased rating issues will significantly impact a decision on the TDIU issue. Therefore, the three issues are inextricably intertwined, and a remand of the TDIU issue is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Prepare an SOC concerning the issues of (1) whether the reduction of the disability rating for prostate cancer from 100 percent to 40 percent effective January 1, 2013, was proper and (2) an increased rating in excess of 40 percent from January 1, 2013. These issues should only be returned to the Board if a timely substantive appeal is filed. (Continued on the next page)   2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and severity of his service-connected PTSD. C. BOSELY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Isaacs, Associate Counsel