Citation Nr: 18136709 Decision Date: 09/19/18 Archive Date: 09/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-22 735 DATE: September 19, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1978 to November 1981. The Board notes that a May 2016 VA Form 9, substantive appeal, reflected the Veteran’s desire to participate in a hearing before a member of the Board. However, in July 2018 correspondence, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request. Accordingly, the Board considers the Veteran’s request for a hearing to be withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d), (e) (2017). 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. The Veteran’s last VA examination was in December 2014. When available evidence is too old for an adequate evaluation of the Veteran’s current condition, VA’s duty to assist includes providing a new examination. Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281 (1993). In addition, the Veteran has submitted evidence indicating that his PTSD has worsened. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (2007); see e.g., December 2014 Treatment Report to Court; December 2015 Notice of Disagreement. As such, a remand is necessary to conduct a new examination to assess the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). In addition, a review of the record indicates that the Veteran is currently receiving compensation from the Social Security Administration (SSA). See September 2017 Dr. A.Q.L. Psychological Assessment Report. VA has a duty to obtain SSA records when it has actual notice that the Veteran is receiving SSA benefits. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). These records could affect the claim on appeal. Therefore, an attempt should be made to obtain these records on remand. In addition, all relevant ongoing medical records should be obtained. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability is remanded. Any decision with respect to the other claim remanded herein may affect the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU. This issue is inextricably intertwined because additional evidentiary development during the VA examination for the Veteran’s increased rating claim, could significantly change the adjudication of the TDIU issue. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Therefore, consideration of entitlement to TDIU must be deferred until the intertwined issue is either resolved or prepared for appellate consideration. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request authorization to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to his claims, including any private treatment records following proper VA procedures (38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)). 2. Obtain and associate with the record SSA records for the Veteran. All actions to obtain the requested records should be documented fully in the claims file. If any records cannot be located or no such records exist, the Veteran and his representative should be so notified, and the unavailability of the records should be noted in the claims file. 3. After completing the requested development, the RO must arrange for the Veteran to undergo a VA examination to evaluate the current severity of his PTSD. A copy of this remand and all relevant medical records should be made available to the examiner. The examiner should review the pertinent evidence, including the Veteran’s lay assertions, and undertake any indicated studies. The most up-to-date Disability Benefits Questionnaire should be utilized, if possible. In making a determination, the examiner should consider: i.) October 2011 A.F.B. Buddy Statement; ii.) October 2011 M.W. Buddy Statement; iii.) December 2014 VA Examination; iv.) December 2014 Dr. C.J.B. Treatment Report to Court; v.) September 2017 Dr. A.Q.L. Psychological Assessment Report; and, vi.) June 2018 Dr. S.G. Vocational Employability Assessment. The examiner is also asked to address the extent to which the functional impairment caused by the Veteran’s PTSD (along with the service-connected tinnitus) impairs his ability to meet the demands of a job, whether sedentary or physical, and the timeframe in which such impairment arose. Commentary should also be provided on the extent of social impairment resulting from PTSD. (Continued on the next page)   All opinions and conclusions reached by the examiner should be thoroughly explained. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Mukherjee, Associate Counsel