Citation Nr: 18155696 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 16-63 239 DATE: December 6, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for major depressive disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from October 1972 to October 1975. Major depressive disorder The Veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected major depressive disorder. Factual background shows that the Veteran received a private psychiatric evaluation in November 2014 where the Veteran reported symptoms of sadness, depression, loss of interest in people and activities, feelings of worthlessness, moody, irritable, lack of concentration, and panic attacks. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with major depressive disorder, moderate to severe with psychotic features, and recommended a combination of psychopharmacology and psychotherapy. Alternatively, in March 2016, the Veteran received a VA examination for mental disorders in which the examiner found no evidence of a mental disorder. The examiner explained that psychological testing suggested exaggeration of the Veteran’s symptoms to the extent that the validity indicators were such that clinical and supplementary scales were uninterpretable. The examiner concluded that it is not feasible to determine the Veteran’s current level of functioning or any mental disorder diagnosis at this time, and in the absence of reliable data regarding the Veteran’s current functioning and objective test results indicating inaccurate self-report of symptoms, it would be inappropriate to continue the diagnosis of major depressive disorder at this time. The Board also notes that the March 2016 examiner referenced 2014 and 2015 VA mental health treatment notes from the Durham VAMC, in which the Veteran reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, panic attacks, audio hallucinations, and suicidal ideation. However, these records are not of evidence. Given that the afore-mentioned medical opinions are in stark contrast, the Board finds remand is warranted to reconcile the medical opinions. Additionally, as VA treatment records have been identified that are relevant to the Veteran’s claims, on remand, the AOJ should make necessary attempts to retrieve these records to satisfy VA’s duties to assist. Entitlement to TDIU As resolution of the Veteran’s increased rating claim for major depressive disorder could affect entitlement to TDIU, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the psychiatric disorder claim issue being remanded. Therefore, the Board finds that remanding the claim for TDIU for contemporaneous consideration is also warranted. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any VA treatment records not currently of record for all of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities and associate the same with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. After completing the above, schedule the Veteran for a VA mental health examination, with an examiner who has not previously examined him, to determine the nature and severity of the Veteran’s service-connected psychiatric disorder. The examiner must review the claims file and must note that review in the report. The examiner should also identify the nature, frequency, severity, and current manifestations of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder and specify the degree of occupational or social impairment. The examiner should set forth all examination findings and a complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. All necessary special studies or tests, to include psychological testing and evaluation, should be accomplished. If the examiner determines that any prior diagnoses are incorrect, he or she should provide an explanation for why the diagnosis was in error. If the examiner determines that he or she is unable to provide the requested opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner must provide a reasoned explanation for such conclusion. (Continued on the next page)   3. Then, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and provided an opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Laffitte, Associate Counsel