Citation Nr: 21070048 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-11 852 DATE: November 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to July 1970, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which, inter alia, denied a rating greater than 30 percent for the Veteran's PTSD. The Veteran timely appealed that decision. In March 2019, the RO increased the Veteran's disability rating to 50 percent, effective December 12, 2016. Although a higher rating was granted, the issue remains in appellate status as the RO did not assign the maximum schedular rating. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). In November 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Finally, as will be addressed in the remand portion of this decision, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU has been raised by the record. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). For the following reasons, a remand is necessary for further development before the claims can be decided. At his Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that his PTSD symptoms has worsened in severity since his last VA examination in March 2017. Specifically, he testified that he is now battling suicidal ideation and that he has suicidal thoughts "every day." See Board hearing transcript, p. 9. Here, based on the Veteran's lay statements, the Board does not have a fully informed evaluation of the Veteran's symptomatology. In light of the above, the medical evidence before the Board is inadequate to determine the functional effects and severity of the symptomatology due to the Veteran's PTSD. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Moreover, in light of the evidence of possible worsening since the Veteran's last VA examination over four years ago, remand is warranted for additional examination. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505-506 (1995) ("where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the claimant's disability and the claim is well grounded, the fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist requires a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination"). Regarding TDIU, the Board notes that during his Board hearing, testimony was received that the Veteran is very isolated socially, has separated from his wife, has a very difficult time relating to people, did not take orders well from his superiors, and that his service-connected PTSD would make it difficult for him to work due to his career as a commercial diver. He stated that his work told him he had to leave his job because he was having a lot of problems related to his PTSD, including workplace conflict, and that his employer feared he would act violently towards his coworkers. See Board hearing transcript, pp.13-14. The above evidence reflects that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU has been raised by the evidence of record and should be adjudicated the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to evaluate the severity of his service-connected PTSD in accordance with the current disability benefits questionnaire. The records, including this REMAND, must be made available to, and be reviewed by, the examiner and the examination report should note that review. The examiner should consider the Veteran's November 2020 Board hearing testimony, where he stated that he struggles daily with suicidal thoughts. 2. After undertaking any appropriate development, adjudicate the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kovacs, 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.