Citation Nr: 21040086 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 18-14 103 DATE: July 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating for PTSD in excess of 30 percent prior to January 1, 2018 is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD in excess of 50 percent from January 1, 2018 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent prior to January 1, 2018 for PTSD is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for PTSD in excess of 50 percent from January 1, 2018 is remanded. The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1969 to October 1973. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a June 2019 decision, the Board denied an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for the period prior to January 1, 2018 and granted an increased rating of 50 percent from January 1, 2018. The Veteran appealed the June 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a July 2020 joint motion for partial remand (JMPR), the parties requested the Board's favorable finding, namely the grant of an increased disability rating of 50 percent from January 1, 2018, not be disturbed. With regards to the period prior to January 1, 2018, the parties stipulated the Board erred in not addressing the Veteran's lay statements in the August 2016 notice of disagreement and April 2019 informal hearing presentation (IHP) indicating that he experiences panic attacks and short-term and long-term memory loss which affects his ability to understand complex commands. The parties also agreed that the Board did not address the Veteran's assertion that the July 2016 VA examination was inadequate because the VA examiner did not consider his lay statements. With regards to the period from January 1, 2018, the parties stipulated the Veteran's VA mental health treatment records reflects his PTSD has worsened, but the Board did not discuss whether a new VA examination was warranted. The parties further stipulated the Board misapplied the holding in Bankhead regarding passive versus active suicidal ideation in its evaluation of the Veteran's PTSD and emphasized active suicidal ideation rather than suicidal ideation in general. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 20 (2017). Additionally, the parties agreed the Board did not clearly discuss why a higher rating in excess of 50 percent is not warranted. The parties also stated the Board did not assign the disability rating correlating to the Board's finding that the Veteran's PTSD causes occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in "most areas" such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, mood. The parties requested the June 2019 Board decision be vacated and remanded for readjudication, and the Court granted the parties' request. In May 2021, the Veteran's attorney moved for an extension of time to submit additional evidence or argument. That motion was denied by the Board later that month. In denying the motion, the Board found that good cause had not been shown to support the request for an extension of time. In June 2021, the Veteran, through his attorney filed another motion, seeking a stay of adjudication for an additional three months. The motion did not cite to any relevant regulation in support of any stay of adjudication of the appeal. Given the Board's previous response to the motion for an extension, the request for a stay of adjudication is denied. Upon review of the evidence, the Board finds a remand is warranted to further develop the Veteran's claim. The Veteran's last VA examination was conducted in July 2016. Since that VA examination, the Veteran has submitted lay statements in an August 2016 notice of disagreement and a December 2018 correspondence indicating he has difficulty conversating with people and does not talk much with his wife. He reports having trouble with his memory and cannot remember his anniversary, who was in his wedding, his pastor's name, or his wife and children's birthday. He reports thinking about his experience in Vietnam on a daily basis and that it makes it difficult for him to participate in many activities and social family outings. He reports severe sleeping problems and is on edge and irritable most days. He cannot focus and finds it challenging to do simple task. He also reports feeling unsafe in his own home or anywhere else. Notably, he reports feeling like he is not good for anything and feels hopeless and helpless. The Veteran's VA treatment records further indicates that he experiences suicidal ideation. As the foregoing evidence may indicate that his PTSD worsened since the July 2016 VA examination, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination to determine the current severity of his PTSD. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA or private treatment records related to the Veteran's PTSD and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his PTSD. The examiner must review the complete claims file and must note that review in the report. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings reported in detail. The examiner should also consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the severity of his PTSD symptoms. 3. After, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and provide him with an appropriate opportunity to respond. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Xiong, 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.