Citation Nr: 21005463 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 12-28 407 DATE: February 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent from August 31, 2010 until September 23, 2011 for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and in excess of 70 percent since is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1966 to June 1969. In April 2020, the Board remanded the case to the AOJ for additional development and consideration. The Board incorporates by reference the procedural history discussed in the April 2020 Board remand. The file is again before the Board for further appellate review. Of note, in January 2021, the Board remanded other issues that are not before the Board at this time, including service connection for a respiratory disorder, peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, and a neurocognitive disorder, an increased rating for prostate cancer residuals and an earlier effective date for the grant of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). An additional issue of special monthly compensation for aid and attendance or housebound status has also been certified to the Board and is pending the scheduling of a Board hearing. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent from August 31, 2010 until September 23, 2011 for PTSD and in excess of 70 percent since is remanded. By history, the Board remanded this issue in April 2020 for the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain a VA examination on the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD. On remand, the AOJ arranged for a VA examination in September 2020 to assess the severity of the Veteran’s PTSD. Following the issuance of the supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in October 2020, additional VA medical evidence was added to the claims file, to include Memphis VA Medical Center (VAMC) treatment records, dated from October 2020 to December 2020. Notably, the Veteran was admitted for in-patient psychiatric treatment at the Memphis VAMC from November 22, 2020 through December 3, 2020, on complaint of suicidal ideation and depression. Given the receipt of VA-generated evidence following the transfer of the case to the Board in October 2020, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for the AOJ to consider the additional VA treatment records, and provide notice with an opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his private attorney. 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (b). In this regard, on remand, the Board finds it would also be helpful for the September 2020 VA PTSD examiner to provide an addendum opinion on the severity of the Veteran’s PTSD, upon an opportunity to review the additional VA mental health treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an updated addendum opinion by the September 2020 VA examiner (or if not available, a similarly qualified clinician) for consideration of VA treatment records, dated from October 2020 to present. The examiner should indicate that the record was reviewed. If the examiner determines that another in-person examination is required, then such an examination should be scheduled. On review of the record, the examiner should update and/or confirm the findings recorded in the September 2020 VA PTSD examination. Rationale must be provided for the opinions proffered. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim for an increased rating for PTSD, including specific consideration of the additional VA treatment records from the Memphis VAMC, dated from October 2020 to present, and any additional medical evidence obtained above. If this issue is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case. Allow the Veteran and his attorney the appropriate time for response. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Dustin L. Ware Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Biswajit Chatterjee, 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.