Citation Nr: 20000085 Decision Date: 01/02/20 Archive Date: 01/02/20 DOCKET NO. 10-48 127 DATE: January 2, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1952 to July 1954. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2009 rating decision and a December 2017 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico The Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for an acquired psychiatric condition in a February 2017 decision for further development, and that issue is now back before the Board. Additionally, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for his bilateral hearing loss disability in an August 2018 decision. The Veteran then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims (CAVC), and in June 2019 CAVC vacated the August 2018 Board decision insofar as it did not address the Veteran’s entitlement to TDIU, granted a joint motion for remand, and returned the case to the Board for action consistent with the joint motion for remand. Acquired Psychiatric Condition In this case the Veteran indicated in a statement dated July 2016, that since returning from Korea he could not adapt to stressful circumstances, maintain relationships with other people, experienced anxiety, had problems sleeping, and experienced suspiciousness. The Board also notes in a correspondence dated April 2013, the Veteran’s spouse provided a lay statement where she noted the Veteran’s behavior before and after the Veteran’s deployment to Korea. The Veteran’s spouse indicated that when the Veteran returned from Korea, he was nervous, had difficulty sleeping and nightmares, isolated himself from his family, and found it difficult to trust people. She went on to state that the Veteran has symptoms which continued to the present day. While there are VA examinations in the record for the Veteran’s claimed psychiatric disabilities, the Board finds them to be inadequate. In proffering their opinions, the examiners did not take into account the Veteran’s competent lay statements when opining on the Veteran’s disabilities nor the lay statement submitted by the Veteran’s wife. As such, the VA examiners did not adequately assess whether the Veteran’s psychiatric disabilities were related to his active duty service and the Board finds an additional examination is required to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s disabilities. TDIU Finally, the Board notes the issue of entitlement to a TDIU rating must be held in abeyance at this time, because this issue is intrinsically intertwined with the above-noted remanded issue. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner, who has not previously examined the Veteran, with sufficient expertise to address the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed acquired psychiatric disabilities. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should state an opinion with respect to whether any diagnosed psychiatric disability at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) originated during his period of active service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements. If an examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If an examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete answer as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. 2. Next, the Veteran should be sent, and requested to complete and return, a VA Form 21-8940 (Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability). (Continued on the next page)   The RO should remind the Veteran that the VA’s duty to assist a claimant is not a “one-way street,” and a claimant seeking help cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he or she may have information that is essential in obtaining putative evidence. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Gresham 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.