Citation Nr: 18157745 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-56 605 DATE: December 13, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for an acquired psychiatric disability, characterized as specific phobia with secondary persistent depressive disorder and dysthymia, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1986 to October 1986 and April 1987 to November 1995. As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that in her February 2014 notice of disagreement, the Veteran disagreed with the denial of her claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date for establishing an increased evaluation for her acquired psychiatric disability. However, the Veteran did not file a substantive appeal to the denial of this claim. Accordingly, the Board has no jurisdiction over this claim and it is not properly before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for an acquired psychiatric disability, characterized as specific phobia with secondary persistent depressive disorder and dysthymia, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The Veteran seeks a rating in excess of 50 percent for her service-connected acquired psychiatric disability. The Board observes that the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination in connection with her claim in January 2016. Since that examination, the Veteran has submitted May 2018 and August 2018 statements, where she asserts that her acquired psychiatric disorder has worsened. Specifically, she states that the symptoms of her acquired psychiatric disorder have increased in severity, causing her to close her restaurant, rendering her unable to work, and making it increasingly difficult to be in public for an extended amount of time without experiencing episodes of anxiety. Given these credible statements, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a new examination in order to accurately assess the current extent and severity of her acquired psychiatric disability. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 402-403 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994); Cf. VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (April 7, 1995). Additionally, when a veteran submits a claim for an increased rating for a service-connected disability, it is a claim for the highest rating available, to include entitlement to TDIU, if raised by the record. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009); Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the Veteran’s assertion that her acquired psychiatric disorder has caused her to close her restaurant and rendered her unable to work raise the issue of her entitlement to TDIU. However, because the outcome of her claim seeking an increased rating for her acquired psychiatric disability will have a direct bearing on the adjudication of TDIU, entitlement to TDIU must be remanded as inextricably intertwined. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any and all treatment records from the Walla Walla VA Medical Center, in Walla Walla, Washington since October 2016, and the Richland VA Clinic, in Richland, Washington since June 2016, and any other VA facility from which the Veteran has received treatment. If the Veteran has received additional private treatment, she should be afforded an appropriate opportunity to submit the medical records of such treatment. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current extent and severity of her acquired psychiatric disability. The claims folder should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. All tests deemed necessary should be conducted and the results reported in detail. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. 3. The RO should undertake any other development deemed necessary in order to adjudicate the TDIU claim, including obtaining any VA examinations or opinions. If TDIU is denied, advise the Veteran of this and of her procedural and appellate rights.   If she files a timely notice of disagreement and, after receiving a statement of the case, also files a timely substantive appeal (VA Form 9 or equivalent), then return this derivative claim to the Board for further appellate consideration. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Crosnicker, Associate Counsel