Citation Nr: 18159642 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/19/18 DOCKET NO. 12-16 751 DATE: December 19, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating greater than 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from September 7, 2010 to June 20, 2011, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 50 for PTSD, beginning September 1, 2011, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). The Veteran had active military service from May 1970 to May 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the February and December 2011 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Veteran appeared at a June 2013 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. This matter was previously before the Board in June 2017. At that time, the Board granted a rating no greater than 50 percent for the Veteran’s PTSD from September 7, 2010 to June 20, 2011, denied a rating greater than 50 percent for PTSD beginning September 1, 2011, and denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Venters Claims (Court). On April 25, 2018, the Court issued a joint motion for partial remand that remanded this matter to the Board for readjudication and issuance of a new decision. 1. Entitlement to a rating greater than percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from September 7, 2010 to June 20, 2011 and beginning September 1, 2011 is remanded. In an October 2018 correspondence, the Veteran, through his representative, contends that his PTSD warrants a rating greater than 50 percent for his service connected PTSD from September 7, 2010 to June 20, 2011 and beginning September 1, 2011. The Board notes that the Veteran contends that the January 2017 VA PTSD examination is inadequate because the examiner made impermissible factual determinations regarding his credibility, based opinions on factually incorrect information, and provided flawed medical rationales. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded the opportunity to undergo a new VA PTSD examination to determine the severity of the Veteran’s service connected PTSD. Additionally, as the resolution of the claim for a rating greater than 50 percent for PTSD, beginning September 1, 2011, might be determinative of the claim for a rating greater than 50 percent for PTSD, from September 7, 2010 to June 20, 2011, the issues are inextricably intertwined, and the both issues must be remanded. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service connected disabilities. As the resolution of the claim for a greater rating for the Veteran’s PTSD might be determinative of the TDIU claim, the issues are inextricably intertwined, and the t TDIU issue must also be remanded. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Since the claims file is being remanded, it should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate those documents with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service connected PTSD. The examination should include all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner should report all manifestations related to the service connected disability. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. (Continued on the next page)   3. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mountford, Associate Counsel