Citation Nr: 21070836 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 18-54 600 DATE: November 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 70 percent for major depressive disorder (MDD) with anxious distress is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from November 2006 to August 2008. The Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in October 2021. A transcript of this hearing has not yet been associated with the claims file. Nevertheless, when the outcome of an appeal is immediately clear, the Board's policies permit the presiding VLJ to activate the appeal and proceed with the preparation of a decision without first waiting for a hearing transcript under the Board's One Touch Program. Pursuant to this policy, the undersigned has decided to activate the Veteran's appeal and issue a decision expeditiously. The hearing transcript from the Veteran's October 2021 hearing will still be processed and associated with the claims file in the ordinary course of business. Increased Rating and TDIU Claims Review of the claims file reflects that the Veteran last underwent a VA examination assessing the severity of his psychiatric disorder in June 2018. During his October 2021 hearing before the Board, the Veteran testified that his psychiatric symptoms have increased in severity since the June 2018 VA examination. Moreover, the June 2018 VA examination did not assess the impact of the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability on his employability. Accordingly, the Veteran should be provided with a new VA examination to assess the current severity of his major depressive disorder with anxious distress. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (2007); Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281, 284 (1993); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994) (finding that the Board should have ordered a contemporaneous examination of veteran because a 23-month old exam was too remote in time to adequately support the decision in an appeal for an increased rating); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.326(a). Additionally, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should obtain all of the Veteran's VA treatment records from 2018 through the present and associate them with the claims file. Last, the Veteran is advised that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. He cannot stand idle when the duty to assist is invoked by failing to provide important information or otherwise failing to cooperate. Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 224 (2000); Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 452 (2000) (noting that a veteran cannot passively wait for help from VA). The Veteran is encouraged to appear for any scheduled VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records for the Veteran, to include all VA treatment records from 2018 through the present, and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a comprehensive VA psychiatric examination to determine the current severity of his major depressive disorder with anxious distress. The evidence of record, in the form of electronic records, and any additional VA treatment or evaluation records in digital formats must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must specify in the examination report that these records have been reviewed. The examiner must provide fully descriptive assessments of all psychiatric symptoms. The examiner must comment on the presence or absence, and the frequency, severity, and duration of symptoms due to his psychiatric disorder and discuss the effects of those symptoms on the Veteran's occupational and social functioning. The examiner must also conduct a mental status examination. The examiner should discuss any occupational and functional impairment resulting from the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability, i.e., impact on employment. When addressing the occupational and functional effects, the examiner may consider the Veteran's occupational and educational background, but must not consider the Veteran's age or any non-service-connected disabilities. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Katz, 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.