Citation Nr: 20006982 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/28/20 DOCKET NO. 13-31 925 DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) due to a service connected disability. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2001 to September 2005. These matters come on appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was most recently remanded in June 2015 for further development; it has since been re-assigned to the undersigned. The Board notes that in the June 2015 Board remand, the Board requested an opinion from a VA examiner as to the Veteran ‘s employability. This opinion was not obtained while on remand status. However, it is noted that the ultimate question of whether a veteran is capable of substantially gainful employment is a legal determination for VA adjudicators to make rather than a medical question to be answered by healthcare providers. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Therefore, while the Board is remanding the appeal for other reasons, it will not request the same development as in the June 2015 and will not remand on the basis of noncompliance with the prior Board remand. 1. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent for PTSD. The Veteran was afforded a September 2015 VA examination for his PTSD. However, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s reports of suicidal ideation. See March 2015 VA Form 9; see also May 2015 Informal Hearing Presentation. Therefore, the September 2015 examiner did not provide the Board with an accurate picture of the severity of the Veteran’s PTSD. Moreover, the examination is over 4 years old. Given the passage of time and the failure to consider the Veteran’s statements, a remand is necessary for a new examination. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); see also Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran asserts that his service connected PTSD prevents him from obtaining employment. See April 2013 Notice of Disagreement. Therefore, the matter of entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the Veteran’s other remanded issue; accordingly, it must be remanded as well. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); see also Harris v. Derwinksi, 2 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records for the Veteran’s disability from October 2017 to the present. 2. After the development in the first instruction is completed, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. 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. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the Veteran’s PTSD and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s PTSD on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). The examiner should address the Veteran’s March 2015 Form 9 in which he claims suicidal ideation. A complete rationale for all opinions rendered must be provided. 3. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Lederman, 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.