Citation Nr: 21069811 Decision Date: 11/19/21 Archive Date: 11/19/21 DOCKET NO. 19-37 911 DATE: November 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), prior to September 25, 2019 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from January 1970 to January 1973. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD was before the Board in April 2020, and specifically an increased initial rating in excess of 30 percent prior to September 25, 2019, was denied. A February 2021 order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) implemented a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacating the April 2020 Board decision as to the Veteran's claim for entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected PTSD prior to September 25, 2019, and remanded that issue to the Board for action consistent with the JMPR. The Board remanded the case for further development in July 2021. The case has since been returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Board finds that additional development is warranted before the claim on appeal is decided. A remand is necessary in order to ensure compliance with the July 2021 Board remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Specifically, in the July 2021 Board remand, the agency of original jurisdiction was instructed to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, and for the VA examiner to provide a full description of the Veteran's PTSD disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria prior to September 25, 2019. The examiner was directed to provide a retrospective opinion as to whether the Veteran's reports of a chronic intermittent passive death wish was indicative of passive suicidal ideation and if so, how they contributed to the overall level of social and occupational impairment. While another VA examination was provided, it does not appear that the examiner reported all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability, nor did the examiner address how the Veteran's passive suicidal ideation contributed to the overall level of social and occupation impairment prior to September 25, 2019. In that regard, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2021. At that time, the examiner found that the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. However, the examiner noted that the Veteran's wife died in 2020 and that his physical disabilities had continued, which resulted in the Veteran's symptoms worsening. The Veteran did report that he had passive thoughts of suicide since 2013 or 2014, but that he never had an intent or plan as it relates to suicide. Additionally, the Veteran reported that after 2013 he began to lose his balance and experience muscle atrophy. He reported that his issues with walking have caused him to feel like he did not contribute to the world, and that he only takes. The examiner noted that the Veteran's thinking would negatively impact the Veteran socially and occupationally, in that it caused him to withdraw. Further, the Veteran's report of feeling like a burden to those around him resulted in his not overtly engaging socially and occupationally post 2013. Notably, while the examiner discussed that the Veteran's way of thinking did have a negative impact on him socially and occupationally, it does not appear that the examiner opined as to the Veteran's level of occupational and social impairment prior to September 25, 2019. Shortly thereafter, an addendum opinion was obtained in August 2021. At that time, the examiner stated that the Veteran's passive suicidal ideation was fleeting thoughts absent an active intent or plan. Notably, the examiner stated that it was not possible, without mere speculation, to determine how one symptom, independent of the Veteran's other symptoms, impacted his ability to function socially or occupationally. Further, that while the examiner found that the Veteran's passive ideation had a negative impact on the Veteran's functioning, the examiner was unable to determine, without speculation how one symptom, independent of other symptoms impacted the Veteran's social and occupational functioning. The Board notes, that the examiner was not directed to address the Veteran's social and occupational impairment caused solely by the Veteran's passive suicidal ideation prior to September 25, 2019. Indeed, the Board directed the examiner to discuss how the Veteran's suicidal ideation contributed to the Veteran's overall level of social and occupational impairment. Thus, a new opinion should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. A VA opinion should be obtained to determine the severity of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD prior to September 25, 2019 in accordance with the July 2021 remand directives. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner should provide a full description of the Veteran's PTSD disability prior to September 25, 2019, and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. The examiner should be sure to specifically discuss the Veteran's level of occupational and social impairment prior to September 25, 2019. 2. Confirm that the VA opinion provided comport with this remand, and undertake any other development found to be warranted. 3. Then, readjudicate the remaining issue on appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Cannaday, 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.