Citation Nr: 21005852 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 13-34 101A DATE: February 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), previously rated as generalized anxiety disorder, parasomnia not otherwise specified, and alcohol dependence, is remanded. Entitlement to initial increased ratings for left knee internal derangement, evaluated as noncompensable prior to August 31, 2015 and as 10 percent thereafter is remanded. Entitlement to initial increased ratings for a skin disorder (diagnosed as folliculitis, xerosis/contact dermatitis, and herpes genitalis), evaluated as 30 percent prior to January 3, 2019 and as 10 percent thereafter is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1979 to September 1983 and from February 1986 to September 2010. In June 2020, the Board remanded the listed issues for additional development. The Veteran contends that the assigned ratings do not adequately reflect the severity of his disabilities (psychiatric, left knee, and skin). He further argues that he is unemployable due to service-connected disabilities. On review, additional development is needed as to all issues. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). First, the Veteran underwent additional VA PTSD examination in August 2020. In October 2020 and November 2020, the Veteran’s attorney requested a copy of this examination and a copy of the engagement letter to the examiner or any exam inquiry, including the questions asked. He also requested a copy of the examiner’s curriculum vitae. To date, VA has not responded to this privacy act request and a remand is necessary so that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) can respond. See Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Once the request is made for information as to the competency of the examiner, the veteran has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner.”) Second, in September 2020, the attorney submitted a notice of award from the Social Security Administration (SSA) indicating that the Veteran had been found disabled under its rules beginning in October 2015. While the letter does not specify the basis for the award, the attorney stated that the Veteran’s “complete and total disability is due to his service-connected disabilities.” Considering this, there is a reasonable possibility that the records are relevant to all issues remaining on appeal and a remand is necessary to obtain them. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Respond to the October and November 2020 attorney requests for the following information: a copy of the August 21, 2020 VA examination; a copy of the engagement letter to the VA examiner or any exam inquiry, including the questions asked of the examiner; and a copy of the examiner’s curriculum vitae. 2. Obtain a copy of any decision to grant SSA benefits to the Veteran and the medical records upon which that decision was based and associate them with the claims file. If the search for such records has negative results, the claims file must be properly documented as to the unavailability of those records. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Carsten, 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.