Citation Nr: 21023446 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 16-59 612 DATE: April 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) greater than 50 percent prior to February 7, 2013 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 July 1976 to October 1977. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. In December 2020, the Board granted the Veteran’s claim for an earlier effective date of October 14, 1977 for the award of service connection for PTSD. The Board additionally remanded the claim for an increased rating for PTSD so that the RO could first establish the initial rating dating back to the new effective date. 1. Entitlement to an evaluation for PTSD greater than 50 percent prior to February 7, 2013 is remanded. The Veteran’s PTSD is currently evaluated at 50 percent as of October 14, 1977 and 100 percent as of February 7, 2013. The Veteran contends she is entitled to an evaluation of 100 percent effective October 14, 1977. Unfortunately, a remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that she is afforded every possible consideration. The Veteran reports significant symptoms and treatment immediately after her separation from service through present day. The Veteran notified the VA of various private treatment providers dating back to 1977, but no additional actions were taken to develop this evidence. See June 2013 Correspondence; November 2012 Medical Treatment Records. Further, though the Veteran has been in receipt of disability benefits through the Social Security Administration (SSA) since 1999, the VA has not obtained these records. Accordingly, upon remand, the RO must undertake further development to obtain all available private and VA treatment records, and SSA records, since October 1977. Further, the Board understands the complexities involved in establishing appropriate disability ratings dating back to October 1977, especially in the absence of significant medical evidence. Thus, the Board finds that a retrospective medical opinion addressing the severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric disability between October 1977 and February 7, 2013 is warranted. See Chotta v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 80 (2008) (when there is an absence of medical evidence during a certain period of time, a retroactive medical evaluation may be warranted). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. When entitlement to TDIU is raised during the adjudicatory process of the underlying disability or during the administrative appeal of the initial rating assigned for that disability, it is considered part of the claim for benefits for the underlying disability. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). A TDIU claim is considered reasonably raised when a Veteran submits medical evidence of a disability, makes a claim for the highest rating possible, and submits evidence of service-connected unemployability. See Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the Board finds that entitlement to a TDIU has been raised by the Veteran’s statements seeking a 100 percent disability evaluation for the entire appellate period, her receipt of Social Security Administration disability benefits since 1999, and the March 2014 private medical opinion by Dr. J.H. indicating the Veteran has been unemployable by reason of her depression and PTSD since 1999. Accordingly, these matters are inextricably intertwined and must be remanded concurrently. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (issues are “inextricably intertwined” when a decision on one issue would have a “significant impact” on a veteran’s claim for the second issue). Accordingly, upon remand, the RO should obtain information regarding the Veteran’s employment since October 1977. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain from the Social Security Administration relevant records regarding disability applications made by the Veteran. 2. Appropriate efforts should be made to obtain and associate with this case file any outstanding VA medical records and outstanding private treatment records dating from October 1977, including those identified in the June 2013 Correspondence, with all necessary assistance from the Veteran. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and any representative. 3. Ask the Veteran to complete a TDIU claim form, to include all employment from October 1977. 4. After completion of directives #1 through #3, obtain a retrospective medical opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran’s psychiatric disability during the appellate period. The clinician should review the pertinent evidence of record and, to the extent possible, provide a retrospective opinion as to the symptoms and overall impairment caused by the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder(s) during the period of October 1977 to February 7, 2013. The clinician is specifically asked to discuss the Veteran’s lay reports regarding her symptomatology, and all pertinent VA examination reports during the relevant period. The examiner should elicit from the Veteran her complete educational, vocational, and employment history and should note her complaints regarding the impact of her psychiatric disorder(s) on employment during the period prior of October 1977 to February 7, 2013. The examiner should identify all limitations or functional impairment caused solely by the Veteran’s service-connected psychiatric disability.   5. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to a TDIU. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Blevins, 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.