Citation Nr: 18159653 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/19/18 DOCKET NO. 11-33 491 DATE: December 19, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November to December 2002 and from July 2007 to July 2009. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) stems from his filing of an application seeking a total (100 percent) rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities within the year following the issuance of an October 2009 rating decision that granted service connection for GAD with the assignment of an initial 50 percent rating. As the Veteran’s total combined disability rating reflected in the October 2009 rating decision failed to meet the threshold rating for consideration for a TDIU on a schedular basis, the Regional Office (RO) construed this TDIU filing in January 2010 as encompassing higher initial rating claims, and the current appeal results from the Veteran’s disagreement with the July 2010 rating decision that denied, inter alia, a higher initial rating for his service-connected GAD. In addition to the aforementioned claim, the Veteran also perfected appeals of several other claims, including claims seeking a TDIU and higher initial ratings for a left shoulder disability and related scars. In February 2012, the Veteran testified regarding all of these claims before a Veterans Law Judge who is now retired and, in May 2014, the Board remanded these claims for development in a decision signed by such judge. After completion of the requested development and upon return of the appeal to the Board, in February 2017, the Board informed the Veteran of the retirement of the Veterans Law Judge who held his Board hearing, further informing him of his right to participate in a new Board hearing, which would be conducted by a Veterans Law Judge who would sign any subsequent decision in his appeal. However, as the Veteran failed to respond to this advisory, the Board presumed he did not desire to participate in such a hearing and, in July 2017, issued a decision denying, inter alia, the Veteran’s higher initial rating claim for his GAD, and again remanding his claims for higher initial ratings for his left shoulder disability and related scars, and a TDIU for further development. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed the July 2017 Board decision to the United Stated Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) and, in March 2018, the parties to this appeal submitted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion), wherein they agreed that the Board erred by failing to set forth adequate reasons and bases for denying the Veteran’s claim seeking a higher rating for his GAD. Thus, the parties concluded that this aspect of the Board’s decision should be vacated and returned to the Board for readjudication. The Court granted the parties Joint Motion in a March 2018 Order, and this claim is now again before the Board for appellate review. With regard to the Veteran’s claims for higher initial ratings for his left shoulder disability and related scars, and a TDIU, which were remanded by the Board in July 2017, the RO has undertaken the requested development and readjudicated the claims. However, as reflected in an April 2018 correspondence of record, the Veteran elected to withdraw his claims from appeal and have them undergo a higher level review under the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP), which was accomplished in June 2018. Consequently, such issues are no longer before the Board. The Board notes that additional evidence, to include updated VA treatment records, was associated with the record after the RO last adjudicated the Veteran’s claim for a higher initial rating for GAD in the March 2015 supplemental statement of the case. However, as his claims are being remanded, the RO will have an opportunity to review all the submitted documents such that no prejudice results to the Veteran in the Board considering such evidence for the limited purpose of issuing a comprehensive and thorough remand Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for GAD. As referenced above, the parties to this appeal agreed in the Joint Motion that the Board failed to set forth adequate reasons and bases for denying the Veteran’s claim seeking a higher initial rating for his service-connected GAD. Specifically, the parties agreed that the Board erred by failing to adequately discuss relevant evidence of the Veteran’s reported suicidal ideation, his suicide attempt, his poor hygiene, and his reported daily panic attacks when determining that the criteria for a 70 percent rating had not been met. However, before the Board may endeavor to offer a more complete analysis of the Veteran’s claim, a new VA examination assessing the current severity of his GAD is required. In that regard, the Veteran’s GAD was most recently assessed by a VA examination performed in March 2015, and the Veteran’s VA psychiatric treatment rendered since that time suggests material changes in his disability. Specifically, while the Veteran denied suicidal ideation at the time of his March 2015 VA examination, he reported experiencing suicidal ideation when receiving VA treatment in June 2016. Moreover, while he again denied experiencing suicidal ideation in treatment rendered thereafter, he reported mounting panic and uncontrollable rage in October 2017. Given the foregoing, the Board concludes that a new VA psychiatric examination is required. Additionally, the Veteran’s recent VA treatment records, which will likely contain records reflecting his ongoing VA psychiatric treatment, should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records dated from March 2018 to the present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected GAD. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and social and occupational impairment due to his GAD alone. The examiner should also clarify whether the Veteran’s panic disorder, diagnosed during the appeal period, is related to his service-connected GAD, or if unrelated, the examiner should differentiate the symptoms attributable to each psychiatric disorder, or state that the such symptoms cannot be so differentiated. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nicole L. Northcutt, Counsel