Citation Nr: 19166326 Decision Date: 08/27/19 Archive Date: 08/27/19 DOCKET NO. 14-01 348 DATE: August 27, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent prior to September 25, 2015 and in excess of 70 percent therefrom for an adjustment disorder with anxiety is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1993 until June 1997 This matter comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) from a May 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Nashville, Tennessee, regional office (RO). The Board remanded this issue in November 2017 to afford the Veteran an opportunity to attend a VA examination to determine the severity of his service connected adjustment disorder with anxiety. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in April 2018 and failed to report. VA attempted to contact the Veteran and attempts to reach him were unsuccessful. The Board again remanded the issue in July 2018. This remand instructed the RO to readjudicate the issue after Social Security Administration (SSA) disability records where included in the file as well as medical records used, which SSA based their decision on. The RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) opining that the Veteran’s current condition did not present an unusual or profound disability picture with such considerations as frequent or extended hospitalizations, incapacitating episodes, or occupational impairment as to render the regular schedule of disability evaluations impracticable. See SSOC May 2019. The RO based their decision without the assistance of a VA examination. Thus, the Board finds that a VA examination is necessary to determine if the Veteran is entitled to a rating in excess of 50 percent prior to September 25, 2015 and in excess of 70 percent therefrom for an adjustment disorder with anxiety is. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current severity of his service connected adjustment disorder with anxiety. The examiner should identify all current manifestations of this service connected disability and should opine as to the current degree of occupational and social functioning associated with this disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be undertaken. The record, including a complete copy of this remand, must be made available for review of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. Rationales for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to the particular question. 2. Readjudicate the issue based on all the evidence of record and all governing legal authority including any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his attorney should be furnished an SSOC and provided with the appropriate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. The Veteran is reminded of his obligation to cooperate with the VA’s efforts to assist him, to include reporting for scheduled examinations. See 38 U.S.C. § § § 5103A, 5107; see also Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Timothy Hatfield, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.