Citation Nr: 18157897 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 14-44 292 DATE: December 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for a mood disorder is remanded. Entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1976 to July 1979. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in May 2018, at which time it was remanded for further development, as discussed below. The Board finds that the remand directives were not substantially complied with and thus another remand is warranted. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for a mood disorder is remanded. A May 2018 Board decision remanded the claim for a rating in excess of 50 percent for a mood disorder for a VA examination to determine the current severity. The remand directives further directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to ensure that the information provided in the examination report satisfies the above criteria and, if not, return the report as insufficient. A VA examination was conducted by a clinical psychologist in June 2018. However, the clinician indicated that insufficient evidence was available to determine the severity of the symptoms associated with the Veteran’s service-connected mood disorder. Specifically, the clinician noted that the Veteran reportedly has been under the care of a private psychiatrist for the past six years, but the collateral medical records were not available to the clinician. As such, the Board finds that the remand directives were not substantially complied with and, therefore, another remand is warranted. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Specifically, the June 2018 VA examination does not include a determination regarding the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected mood disorder. Additionally, the Veteran’s medical records from his private psychiatrist would likely be pertinent to assessing the severity of the Veteran’s mood disorder. Because these medical records were not considered by the clinician, the Board finds the June 2018 VA examination to be inadequate. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Therefore, attempts are to be made to obtain these private medical records and associate them with the record on remand. 2. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is unable to maintain gainful employment due, at least in part, to his service-connected mood disorder. 04/17/2013, VA Form 21-8940. The Board finds that the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the initial rating issue for the psychiatric issue on appeal, and will defer consideration of this matter. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (stating that two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision on one issue cannot be rendered until the other issue has been considered).   These matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for his private psychiatrist. Make two requests for the authorized records from his private psychiatrist, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from September 2018 to the present. 3. After completing directives #1 and #2, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the severity of his service-connected mood disorder. The examiner should review the virtual file, including a copy of this Remand, as well as the Veteran’s medical records associated with his treatment with a private psychiatrist. The examiner should also indicate the impairment that results from the Veteran’s service-connected mood disorder in terms of occupational functioning and daily activities. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Han, Associate Counsel