Citation Nr: 21005250 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 13-31 925 DATE: January 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability evaluation in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) due to a service-connected disability is remanded. 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 previously remanded in June 2015 for further development. Most recently, the Board in January 2020 again remanded to afford the Veteran a new VA examination for his PTSD to include consideration of reports of suicidal ideation. As will be discussed below, the resulting opinion was not responsive to the Board's directive and, therefore, further remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271(1998). Entitlement to an initial disability evaluation in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is remanded. The Board’s January 2020 remand asked the new examiner to consider the Veteran’s reports of suicidal ideation. Specifically, the examiner was asked to address the Veteran’s March 2015 VA Form 9. The Veteran was afforded a new VA examination in March 2020. However, the examiner did not specifically address the Veteran’s March 2015 VA From 9 as directed. The only notation from the examiner concerning suicidal ideation was that the Veteran did not report having any suicidal ideations “during the meeting”. Therefore, the Board finds that substantial compliance with the Board’s prior remand directives did not occur. A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant a legal right to substantial compliance with the remand order; thus, when the Board's remand directives are not satisfied, the Board errs as a matter of law if it fails to ensure substantial compliance with such directives. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Therefore, as substantial compliance with the Board's November 2018 Remand directives has not occurred as set forth above, the Veteran's claim must once again be remanded for further development. See id. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) due to a service-connected disability is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his service-connected PTSD prevents him from obtaining employment. 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, 7Vet. App.116 (1994); see also Harris v. Derwinksi, 2Vet. App.180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. After outstanding records are obtained to the extent possible, ask the March 2020 VA examiner (or, if the same examiner is not available, ask another appropriate examiner) to provide an addendum opinion to address the ambiguity in the record where the Veteran has consistently denied suicidal ideation on examination, but on the other hand has also reported thoughts of suicide in correspondence to the VA, to include on the Veteran’s March 2015 Form 9. The examiner should address statements made in the Veteran’s March 2015 Form 9 along with the July 2020 statement in support of claim. Both of which contain claims that the Veteran experiences suicidal ideation. The Board notes, that the examiner is not asked to take on the role of a VA adjudicator, but directed only to address the relevance of the Veteran’s above statements. See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2012). A complete rationale for all opinions rendered must be provided upon full review of the claims file. 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. Shereen M. Marcus Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. F. Minnitte, Attorney Advisor 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.