Citation Nr: 21064493 Decision Date: 10/20/21 Archive Date: 10/20/21 DOCKET NO. 18-51 870 DATE: October 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), previously other specified trauma disorder, rated as 30 percent prior to August 12, 2021 and as 70 percent thereafter, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army, including from February 2009 to February 2010, and September 2011 to November 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This rating decision granted service connection and assigned a 30 percent rating effective July 8, 2015, the date of his original claim for service connection. This matter was previously before the Board in June 2021. In the June 2021 decision, the Board issued a remand to obtain a new VA examination and medical opinion. On remand, the RO granted an increased rating of 70 percent for service-connected PTSD effective August 12, 2021. The matter has now come back before the Board for adjudication. Unfortunately, the Board finds a remand is warranted for additional development, as the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the Board's prior remand directives for this claim. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In June 2021, the Board remanded the claim to obtain a new VA examination and medical opinion. In remanding the claim, the Board noted that the November 2017 VA examination was inadequate. While the record established that the VA examination was completed, the Board finds the requested medical opinion was not. Specifically, the June 2021 directives stated that the examiner was to provide a retroactive VA opinion "to determine the severity of the Veteran's other specified trauma disorder from July 8, 2015 to November 14, 2017." The examiner was also directed to consider and address the VA medical treatment records from this period and to consider the Veteran's lay statements, to include the statements in the May 2021 hearing transcript. The August 2021 VA examination included a medical opinion. Here, the examiner stated that the new diagnosis of PTSD is a correction of the previous diagnosis as the Veteran now evidences symptoms that are consistent with PTSD. The second medical opinion requested by the AOJ was regarding the Veteran's disability on his ability to function in an occupational environment. The examiner stated that the request regarding individual unemployability is beyond the scope of their expertise on whether or not the Veteran's PTSD renders him unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. See August 2021 Review Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). The Board finds the requested medical opinions in connection with the August 2021 do not comply with the June 2021 remand directives. It is apparent that the AOJ failed to comply with the June 2021 Board remand directives. Therefore, the Board finds the AOJ has not substantially complied with the Board's prior remand directives and a remand is necessary to obtain a new VA medical opinion. See Stegall v. West,11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: The RO should obtain a new VA medical opinion for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. The examiner is directed to provide a retroactive VA opinion to determine the severity of the Veteran's psychiatric condition from July 8, 2015 to November 14, 2017. The examiner should consider and address the VA medical treatment records from this period that contain symptoms of his psychiatric condition, to include hypervigilance with impairment in the Veteran's daily life, intrusive thoughts, discomfort in crowds, startles quickly, insomnia, vivid dreams, anxiety, and avoiding crowds. The examiner should comment on the effects of the psychiatric condition on the Veteran's ability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. A clear rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. The examiner must consider the Veteran's lay statements, to include statements asserted in the May 2021 hearing transcript. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, then the examiner must state this and provide any information needed to make an opinion, if possible. For instance, if there is not enough information of record to make a determination, the examiner should so note and, as necessary, provide a description of the lacking information. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Glaeser, Jennifer 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.