Citation Nr: 18153365 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 16-40 240 DATE: November 28, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent prior to March 4, 2016 and since May 1, 2016 for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to April 1, 2013 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service in the U.S. Navy from October 1987 to December 1997. In a May 2007 rating decision, service connection for PTSD was granted and assigned at 30 percent disabling effective for the entire rating period from June 6, 2006. Pursuant to an August 2012 claim for a higher rating, in a June 2015 rating decision the Veteran’s psychiatric disability was increased to 50 percent disabling effective for the entire rating period from August 21, 2012. During the course of the appeal in a May 216 rating decision, a temporary evaluation of 100 percent was assigned effective from March 4, 2016 to April 30, 2016 and 50 percent was continued thereafter. Most recently, in a September 2016 rating decision, the Veteran’s psychiatric disability was increased to 70 percent disabling effective from August 21, 2012. Since the 70 percent disability rating is not the maximum rating available prior to March 4, 2016 or since May 1, 2016, the issue has been returned to the Board and characterized accordingly. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent prior to March 4, 2016 and since May 1, 2016 for PTSD The Veteran’s last VA examination was in May 2015, which noted that the Veteran experienced symptomatology associated with his diagnoses of PTSD and major depressive disorder (MDD). Subsequently, the Veteran submitted a letter from his VA psychiatrist stating that he was being treated for the symptoms associated with the aforementioned conditions, as well as obsessive compulsive disorder. The Veteran also submitted a September 2016 statement noting that his obsessions and compulsions were preventing him from leaving his home, and endorsed increased auditory and visual hallucinations, which were not present symptoms at his previous examination. Therefore, to ensure that the evidence of record reflects the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD, a more contemporaneous examination is warranted. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994) (VA is obligated to provide a new examination when a Veteran asserts that the service-connected condition has become more severe.). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 1, 2013 In the September 2016 rating decision, entitlement to a TDIU was granted effective from April 1, 2013. The Board finds that this issue has also been raised during the appeal period prior to April 1, 2013. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). As a claim for a TDIU is part and parcel with a claim on appeal for an increased rating, the issues are inextricably intertwined inasmuch that a grant of increase could affect the outcome of this claim. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); 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 cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). Thus, further consideration of the claim must be deferred to avoid piecemeal adjudication. See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records not already associated with the claims file. It must be noted in the claim file that this action was completed. All negative responses should be documented and the appellant should be notified. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his psychiatric disability. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for any opinions provided. 3. Then, review the examination report and medical opinions to ensure that the requested information was provided. If any report or opinion is deficient in any manner, the RO must implement corrective procedures. (Continued on the next page)   4. Then, readjudicate the claims. If any decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. T. Blake Carter Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.L. Reid, Associate Counsel