Citation Nr: 21002678 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 08-11 262 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent, for the period prior to June 11, 2014, for service-connected other specified bipolar and related disorder (psychiatric disorder), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1967 to December 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office. In an October 2019 decision, the Board granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Veteran’s appeal of the rating assigned to his service-connected psychiatric disorder. Specifically, the Board granted a 50 percent rating prior to June 11, 2014, but denied a rating in excess of 30 percent thereafter. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 decision, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) and remanded the issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent, for the period prior to June 11, 2014, for service-connected psychiatric disorder, to the Board for further proceedings. The parties of the JMPR agreed that the Board did not discuss all of the relevant evidence of record. Additionally, the parties agreed that an increased rating for the period beginning June 11, 2014, was not on appeal and is not before the Board. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent, for the period prior to June 11, 2014, for service-connected psychiatric disorder, is remanded. The Board regrets the delay associated with this remand, particularly as the Veteran first sought service-connection for his psychiatric disorder in December 2005. However, based on a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that another remand is necessary to allow the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to conduct additional development. First, the record indicates that the Veteran has received treatment for his psychiatric condition within the El Paso VA Healthcare System (VAHCS), Central Texas VAHCS, and North Texas VAHCS. However, no records relating to treatment within Central Texas VAHCS have been associated with the claims file, nor is there any indication that such records have been requested. Additionally, with respect to treatment within North Texas VAHCS, only excerpts from treatment between January 2005 and February 2005 have been associated with the claims file. Further, with respect to treatment within El Paso VAHCS, though records from January 2015 to November 2019 have been associated with the claims file, for treatment prior to January 2015, only excerpts from treatment between February 2005 and September 2006 have been associated with the claims file. As such, a remand is necessary to ensure that all relevant VA treatment records have been obtained and associated with the electronic claims file. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Second, a remand is warranted to obtain a RETROSPECTIVE opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected psychiatric disorder prior to June 11, 2014. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations regarding his psychiatric disorder in May 2011 and June 2014. See May 2011 VA Initial Examination for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); June 2014 Mental Disorders Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). However, as discussed above, relevant VA treatment records have not been associated with the claims file. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain an opinion that considers the additional medical evidence regarding the severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder prior to June 11, 2014. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. With the Veteran’s assistance as appropriate, obtain and associate with the electronic claims file any pertinent medical records, whether VA or private, including the entirety of the Veteran’s VA treatment records within: (a.) Central Texas VAHCS, (b.) North Texas VAHCS, and (c.) El Paso VACHS. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e), any efforts to secure these records MUST be documented in the electronic claims file, and the Veteran MUST be informed if any of these records are unable to be secured. 2. The Board recognizes the potential practical difficulties in scheduling an examination in light of the COVID-19 epidemic and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran any warranted examination. 3. AFTER COMPLETING THE DEVELOPMENT ABOVE, AND ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT WARRANTED BY THE RECORD, request a retrospective opinion with an appropriate clinician regarding the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected psychiatric disorder prior to June 11, 2014. The entire claims file must be provided to, and reviewed by, the examiner. The examiner is asked to: (a.) Provide a RETROSPECTIVE OPINION regarding the severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder from DECEMBER 2005 THROUGH JUNE 2014. 1. The examiner is asked to 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 include the severity, frequency, and duration of the disability. 2. Identify, to the extent possible, any social or occupational impairment due to the Veteran’s service-connected psychiatric disorder alone. 3. Review and address statements provided by Veteran’s representative on December 8, 2020, as to the Veteran’s symptoms prior to June 11, 2014. 4. Review and comment on the May 2011 and June 2014 VA examination reports, as well as relevant treatment records. Any opinion expressed by the examiner must be accompanied by a complete rationale. If medical literature is relied upon in rendering a determination, the examiner should identify and specifically cite each material utilized. If it is not feasible to perform a requested assessment to any degree of medical certainty without resort to speculation, a thorough explanation as to why the assessment cannot be performed should be provided. 4. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. T. Martin III, 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.