Citation Nr: 21003111 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-53 615 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED An initial rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from March 8, 2007 to June 27, 2013 is remanded. A rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD, from June 27, 2013 to April 21, 2015 is remanded. A rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD, from September 1, 2015 to September 27, 2018 is remanded. A rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD, from September 27, 2018, forward, is remanded. An earlier effective date for the assignment of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU), prior to September 10, 2018 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to October 1970. The Veteran provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at an August 2020 Board hearing. A complete transcript is of record. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has three issues currently on appeal; an increased rating claim for PTSD, an earlier effective date claim for the grant of a TDIU, and a service connection claim for blindness. The Veteran’s earlier effective date for a TDIU and the service connection claim for blindness were accepted into the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) and the increased rating claim remained as a legacy appeal. However, after a review of the Veteran’s claims file, the Board finds that while the Veteran filed separately for TDIU under the AMA, a TDIU claim was already part and parcel of his legacy increased rating PTSD claim. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). As such, the Board finds that the issues are inextricably intertwined because the Veteran’s PTSD is the chief disability in determining whether he is entitled to an earlier effective date for a TDIU and this legacy appeal will adjudicate the Veteran’s increased rating claim for PTSD and his claim for an earlier effective date for a TDIU. The remaining service connection issue will remain as part of the AMA appeal and addressed in a separate decision. The Board notes that the Veteran’s representative has challenged and requested the qualifications of the VA examiners of record. See Correspondence dated July 21, 2020 and November 16, 2020. Specifically, the Veteran’s representative seeks the qualifications of the September 30, 2010 and June 27, 2013 VA psychiatric examiners. The Veteran has submitted a medical opinion from a private psychologist and the representative asserts that the private report must be accepted over the VA examiner’s opinions because the September 2010 and June 2013 VA examiner’s qualifications are unknown. Here, the Veteran has challenged the qualifications of the September 2010 and June 2013 VA examiners. See Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As such, the Board has a duty to assist the Veteran in providing the information concerning the requested examiner’s qualifications. Accordingly, the Board finds that remand of the Veteran’s increased rating claim for PTSD is necessary to assist in providing the requested information. TDIU The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for the assignment of a TDIU. The Veteran has been assigned an effective date of September 10, 2018 for a TDIU. However, the Veteran has submitted a report from a private vocational consultant, indicating that the Veteran has been unemployable since 2007. The Board notes that the period on appeal begins on March 8, 2007, the date VA received his service connection claim for PTSD. The Veteran has continuously litigated this issue and has thus preserved that date as the start of the period on appeal. As previously discussed, the issue of a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with his increased rating claim for PTSD and requires remand of both issues. However, the Board also notes that prior to June 27, 2013, the Veteran did not meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU. Prior to June 27, 2013, he was service connected for PTSD, rated at 30 percent and bilateral hearing loss rated at 10 percent, resulting in a 40 percent combined rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a). The Board finds that in addition to being inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claim, a remand is also necessary so that the claim can be submitted to the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service for extraschedular consideration, because the Board cannot award a TDIU rating, prior to June 27, 2013, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b), in the first instance. Accordingly, the claim for a TDIU earlier than September 10, 2018 is remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran and his representative the requested information regarding the qualifications of the September 30, 2010 and June 27, 2013 VA examiners for PTSD, to include a curriculum vitae or other similar material and include copies of the information provided to the Veteran in the claims file. Documentation of this action should be placed in the claims file. 2. Refer the case to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service for a determination as to whether the Veteran’s disability picture warrants the assignment of a TDIU prior to September 10, 2018, on an extraschedular basis. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.