Citation Nr: 21028726
Decision Date: 05/11/21	Archive Date: 05/11/21

DOCKET NO. 14-05 849
DATE: May 11, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from June 1, 2011, to July 8, 2016, is remanded.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for service-connected PTSD from July 8, 2016, is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1966 to November 1969.

In an October 2019 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's following claims: 1) entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected PTSD from June 1, 2011, to July 8, 2016; 2) entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for service-connected PTSD from July 8, 2016; and entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran then appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a September 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), which was adopted by the Court, the parties agreed to vacate the Board's decision and remand the case to the Board for additional development.

At the outset, the Board first notes there may be outstanding VA treatment records that are potentially pertinent to the Veteran's appeal that are not associated with the record. As noted above, in July 2019, the AOJ obtained VA treatment records dated through July 16, 2019. In an August 2019 rating decision, however, the AOJ indicated that it had reviewed treatment records dated through August 15, 2019, from the Fayetteville VA Medical Center.

Because any outstanding VA treatment records may bear on the outcome of the claims on appeal, efforts must be made to obtain a complete copy of any VA treatment records. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (holding that VA is charged with constructive notice of medical evidence in its possession). Additionally, the Veteran should be given another opportunity to identify any additional pertinent evidence pertinent to his appeal.

Finally, the Board notes that the Veteran was most recently provided with a VA psychiatric examination in July 2016. Since then, additional treatment records have been associated with the file which reflect potentially worsening psychiatric symptoms. In particular, records from June 2019 reflect reports of increased memory difficulties, irritability, and difficulty dealing with people. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see also Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 11-95. As these records indicate that the Veteran's symptoms may have worsened since the last evaluation, on remand a new psychiatric examination should be obtained. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Give the Veteran an additional opportunity to submit or identify any VA or non-VA treatment records that have not already been associated with the claims file. The AOJ should then attempt to obtain those records if he provides the appropriate authorization.

2. Associate with the claims file a complete copy of any outstanding VA treatment records, to include any records from the VA Medical Center in Fayetteville, North Carolina dated from July 16, 2019, to the present.

3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his psychiatric disability.

4. Thereafter, and after any further development deemed necessary, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated. In doing so, ensure that all evidence added to the since the July 2019 SSOC is considered, to include any VA treatment records dated after April 8, 2019.

 

 

CHRISTOPHER A. WENDELL

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	James R. Springer, 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.