Citation Nr: 20006969 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/28/20 DOCKET NO. 19-18 720A DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from February 1967 to January 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Appeals (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board is cognizant of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In Rice, the Court held that a claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU), either expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability and is part of the claim for an increased rating. In this case, neither the Veteran nor his representative have asserted the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD renders him unemployable. Additionally, the record does not otherwise reflect that the Veteran is unemployable on account of his service-connected PTSD. Accordingly, the Board concludes that a claim for a TDIU has not been expressly raised or inferred. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. The Veteran contends that his service-connected PTSD symptoms have “greatly increased” since he was last afforded a VA examination. See July 2019 VA Form 9. Specifically, the Veteran has asserted that he has difficulty interacting with family members on a daily basis, less control over his feelings, more depressed, more times of memory gaps and forgetting where he was going or doing next, and unable to complete any task that he would normally look forward to such as public functions. Id. The Veteran was last provided a VA examination relating to his PTSD in May 2018. In light of the Veteran’s assertions, a new VA examination is required so that the current nature and severity of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD may be determined. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see also Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991) (VA has a duty to provide the veteran with a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination); Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281, 284 (1993) (VA has a duty to provide an examination when there is evidence that the disability has worsened since the previous examination). Accordingly, remand is required for a new VA examination. Additionally, the Veteran is receiving treatment at a Vet Center. See July 2018 VA treatment record. Records received from the Vet Center by the VA in April 2018 dated in January 2018 show a diagnosis for PTSD. However, it is unclear if the Vet Center records submitted are a complete record of the treatment received at this facility. As such, any outstanding treatment records must be obtained on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take all appropriate action to obtain the Veteran’s complete Vet Center treatment records, to include asking him to identify all providers, and associate the records with the claims file. 2. After completing the above action, schedule the Veteran for a new examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected PTSD. The record and a copy of this remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination must include all testing deemed necessary by the examiner in conjunction with this request. The examiner should report all manifestations and functional impairment related to the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 3. After completing the above action, readjudicate the issue on appeal of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD. If the benefit sought is not granted, then the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999). U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. P. Moore, 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.