Citation Nr: 21075008 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 19-00 321A DATE: December 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 11, 2015 for the grant of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1996 to February 1998 and December 2003 to March 2005. The Veteran appeals a January 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A November 2016 rating decision granted entitlement to TDIU. A November 2018 rating decision granted an earlier effective date for TDIU from October 11, 2015. As entitlement to TDIU is based on the Veteran's service-connected PTSD and was raised during the appeal period regarding an increased rating for PTSD, entitlement to TDIU has been granted for only part of the period on appeal. A Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) hearing was held in August 2021. A transcript is of record. The record includes social security administration (SSA) records. However, only the disability determination and report are included. It does not seem that SSA medical records were received or obtained. There may be pertinent evidence regarding PTSD and employment is those records. As such, any SSA medical records should be obtained on remand. Furthermore, the Veteran was treated by psychiatrist J.M. for his PTSD during the period on appeal. See psychiatrist J.M.'s August 2021 letter. However, it does not appear as if all treatment records with psychiatrist J.M. have been obtained. Such records may have pertinent information regarding the severity of the Veteran's PTSD. As such, all treatment records from psychiatrist J.M. should be obtained on remand. Lastly, the Veteran's last VA examination was conducted seven years ago in December 2014. There additionally appears to be worsening of the Veteran's psychiatric condition, to include being committed to a psychiatric facility. See November 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD). Where a Veteran contends that a disability has worsened since his last examination, and the last examination is too remote to constitute a contemporaneous examination, a new examination is required. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403-04 (1997). On remand, the AOJ should afford the Veteran a new examination to determine the current severity of his PTSD. The Veteran is awarded TDIU based on his service-connected PTSD. As the TDIU claim is premised on the severity of the Veteran's PTSD, the issue of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with that issue. Accordingly, the Board will defer adjudication on the matter. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for his PTSD that are not already of record, to include records for psychiatrist J.M. during the period on appeal. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. Obtain the Veteran's SSA records, including any medical records relied on to make a disability benefits determination and associate the same with the claims file. 3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. 4. After the above development has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Zheng, 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.