Citation Nr: 21062593 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/08/21 DOCKET NO. 12-09 116 DATE: October 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent prior to September 30, 2009, in excess of 30 percent from September 30, 2009, to May 30, 2012, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter for dysthymic disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1981 to June 1982. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in September 2010 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In June 2016, the Veteran and his spouse testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. In March 2018, September 2020, and April 2021, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for additional development and the case now returns for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent prior to September 30, 2009, in excess of 30 percent from September 30, 2009, to May 30, 2012, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter for dysthymic disorder. As noted in the prior remands, the appeal period before the Board concerning the Veteran's increased rating claim for his dysthymic disorder stems from the initial award of service connection as of June 29, 1982. However, in the September 2020 remand, the Board found that a September 2019 VA examiner only addressed the Veteran's current occupational and social impairment caused by his dysthymic disorder. In particular, the Board noted the importance of obtaining an adequate medical opinion addressing the effects and impairment attributable to the Veteran's service-connected dysthymic disorder throughout the entire appeal period and, as a result, remanded the issue for an addendum opinion. Thereafter, an October 2020 VA examiner reiterated the Veteran's subjective retrospective account of the past 34 years, opined that it was not possible to state with exact certainty the severity of the Veteran's depression dating back to 34 years ago in terms of how such disability would have impacted his work-related ability, and provided no further commentary addressing the questions posed by the Board's remand. Thus, in April 2021, the Board again remanded the claim in order to obtain a responsive opinion. In particular, the Board requested that a clinician describe the nature and severity of the symptoms specifically attributable to the Veteran's dysthymic disorder throughout the entire appeal period dating back to June 29, 1982, to include the functional impact on his occupational and social functioning, in light of both the Veteran's reports and the medical evidence of record, to include the conflicting reports as to the severity of such disability as detailed in the September 2020 remand. In this regard, the Board noted, as relevant, that the scant medical evidence dated prior to a December 2009 VA examination is of a somewhat conflicting nature. Specifically, whereas previously-received reports appear to demonstrate the Veteran's inability to work due to his service-connected disability, an April 1989 discharge summary, received by VA in January 2019, indicates a March 1988 motor vehicle accident had "destroyed his career plans", to include his expectation of becoming a successful real estate agent. Moreover, although the Veteran reported a history of depression in 1986, the April 1989 discharge summary indicates such was due to difficulties with the Immigration Department and not his service-connected dysthymic disorder. Further, the April 1989 discharge summary shows the Veteran denied any other psychiatric history aside from a medical discharge from service due to a "neurosis". Thereafter, a VA psychologist provided an addendum opinion later in April 2021; however, in doing so, she essentially repeated the findings as stated in the historical record, with the additional notation that the Veteran has had many jobs and was having difficulties sustaining gainful employment for longer than a year. She concluded that his difficulties in sustaining gainful employment "were associated [with] his personality rather than his depression." Thus, as the VA psychologist merely restated historical findings, without additional reflection or assessment of such evidence, and issued a conclusory statement without any rationale, the Board finds that another remand is necessary in order to ensure compliance with the prior remand orders and obtain an addendum opinion that fully addresses the relevant inquiries. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU. As noted in the prior remands, as the outcome of the claim remanded herein may affect the Veteran's eligibility to a TDIU, the claim of entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the former matter. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) (en banc); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Therefore, adjudication of the Veteran's TDIU claim must be deferred until the completion of the development and adjudication of the claim remanded herein. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the file, to include a copy of this Remand, to an appropriate clinician other than the VA psychologist who provided the October 2020 and April 2021 opinions for an addendum opinion addressing the nature and severity of the Veteran's dysthymic disorder throughout the pendency of the appeal. The need for additional examination is left to the discretion of the medical professional offering the addendum opinion. (A) The clinician should review the record and describe, to the extent possible, the nature and severity of the symptoms specifically attributable to the Veteran's dysthymic disorder throughout the entire appeal period dating back to June 29, 1982. In this regard, the examiner is requested to assess the nature and severity of such symptoms in light of both the Veteran's reports and the medical evidence of record, to include the conflicting reports as to the severity of such disability as detailed in the September 2020 remand: An April 1989 discharge summary, received by VA in January 2019, indicates a March 1988 motor vehicle accident had "destroyed his career plans", to include his expectation of becoming a successful real estate agent. Although the Veteran reported a history of depression in 1986, an April 1989 discharge summary indicates such was due to difficulties with the Immigration Department and not his service-connected dysthymic disorder. An April 1989 discharge summary showing the Veteran denied any other psychiatric history aside from a medical discharge from service due to a "neurosis" (B) In particular, the examiner is asked to describe the functional impact that the Veteran's dysthymic disorder has had on his occupational and social functioning since June 29, 1982. (C) If the examiner finds the Veteran's dysthymic disorder negatively impacted his occupational functioning to the point where he would be unable to secure or maintain gainful employment, he or she should indicate when exactly such occurred, if possible. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. M. Celli, 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.