Citation Nr: 18149510 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/09/18 DOCKET NO. 12-13 551 DATE: November 9, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for adjustment disorder with depressed mood prior to December 20, 2017, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent for adjustment disorder with depressed mood on or after December 20, 2017, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to August 1969. His awards and decorations include the Purple Heart Medal and the Combat Infantryman Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2010 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In that decision, the RO granted service connection for adjustment disorder with depressed mood and assigned a 30 percent evaluation effective from March 31, 2010. In July 2015, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In July 2015, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board remanded the case in September 2015 and July 2017 for further development. The case has since been returned for appellate review. During the pendency of the appeal, in a March 2018 rating decision, the RO increased the evaluation for the Veteran’s adjustment disorder with depressed mood to 70 percent effective from December 20, 2017. Nevertheless, the issue remains in appellate status, as the maximum schedular rating has not been assigned. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). In the July 2017 remand, the Board specifically requested that a VA examiner address whether the Veteran has persistent hallucinations or delusions. Although the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2017, the examiner did not discuss any reported hallucinations or delusions as directed. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is required to ensure compliance with the prior remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his service-connected adjustment disorder with depressed mood. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also obtain any outstanding VA medical records, to include any records dated since March 2018. 2. After completing the foregoing development, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The examiner should also review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for rating the Veteran's adjustment disorder under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. The examiner's findings should address the level of social and occupational impairment attributable to the Veteran's service-connected adjustment disorder with depressed mood. The examiner should specifically address whether the Veteran has persistent delusions or hallucinations, to include, if possible, whether he had those symptoms prior to December 20, 2017. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history [,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the Veteran's claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. After completing these actions, the AOJ should ensure that the examination report complies with the remand directive above. The AOJ should also conduct any other development as may be indicated by a response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K.M. Walker, Associate Counsel