Citation Nr: 18155836 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-60 390 DATE: December 6, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to a higher initial rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1983 to April 1984 and from December 1990 to June 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Hartford, Connecticut. The Board is cognizant of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In Rice, the Court held that a claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability, either expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability and is part of the claim for an increased rating. In this case, the Veteran has not argued, and the record does not otherwise reflect, that the disability at issue renders her unemployable. Accordingly, the Board concludes that a claim for TDIU has not been raised. 1. Entitlement to a Higher Initial Rating for PTSD The Board finds that further development is necessary before a decision on the merits may be made regarding the issue of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD. The Veteran was last provided a VA examination relating to her PTSD in July 2015, over three years ago. In the November 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran stated that her condition has increased in severity. Specifically, the Veteran stated that she has contemplated suicide and that her memory has worsened. See VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, received November 2016. In light of the Veteran’s assertions, a new VA examination is required so that the current nature and severity of the Veteran’s service-connected disability may be determined. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see also Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991) (VA has a duty to provide the veteran with a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination); Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281 (1993) (VA has a duty to provide an examination when there is evidence that the disability has worsened since the previous examination). Additionally, in the November 2016 substantive appeal the Veteran stated that she currently receives treatment from a psychologist. The most recent VA treatment records in the Veteran’s claims file are from September 2016. VA treatment records, even if not in the claims file, are considered part of the record on appeal because they are within VA’s constructive possession. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). On remand, updated VA records, as well as any other relevant VA treatment records identified by the Veteran, must be obtained and associated with the record. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding treatment records relevant to the matter being remanded, to include from September 2016. 2. After the above development, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of her service-connected PTSD. The record and a copy of this remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination must include all physical and diagnostic testing deemed necessary by the examiner in conjunction with this request. The examiner should report all manifestations and functional impairment related to the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD. 3. After completion of the above, review the expanded record, including the evidence entered since the most recent statement of the case, and determine whether an increased rating for PTSD may be granted. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and her representative with a supplemental statement of the case. The appropriate period should be allowed for response before the appeal is returned to the Board. U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. G. LeMoine, Associate Counsel