Citation Nr: 22011504 Decision Date: 03/01/22 Archive Date: 03/01/22 DOCKET NO. 18-02 583 DATE: March 1, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from October 1966 to October 1968 in the U.S. Army, including in combat in the Republic of Vietnam. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appointed his current service representative to represent him before VA by filing a completed VA Form 21-22 at the RO in August 2017. A virtual Board hearing was held in March 2021 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. In June 2021, the Board remanded the currently appealed claims to the RO for additional development. The Board noted in this decision that the Veteran was appealing for a higher initial rating for his service-connected PTSD and found that a TDIU claim was reasonably raised by the record evidence. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). A review of the claims file shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. The Board directed that the RO attempt to obtain certain identified private treatment records for the Veteran and develop his TDIU claim. These records subsequently were associated with the claims file. The RO also sent a letter to the Veteran's former employer in September 2021 requesting information about his employment. To date, this former employer has not responded. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999) (holding that another remand is not required under Stegall where the Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff'd, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002). Additional development is required before the underlying claims can be adjudicated on the merits. The Board finally notes that the RO misspelled the Veteran's last name in the cover letter to the December 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The Board apologizes for the RO's error. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 50 percent for PTSD is remanded. The Veteran essentially contends that his service-connected PTSD is more disabling than currently (and initially) evaluated. He specifically testified at his March 2021 Board hearing that, since 2016, he had experienced worsening PTSD symptoms to include constant nervousness, constant hypervigilant behavior (checking locks and windows constantly when at home), constant anxiety, no interest in socializing with others, including his own extended family members, ongoing sleep disturbance due to nightmares, flashbacks, and no social relationships with anyone other than his wife. His testimony is consistent with certain of the additional VA and private outpatient treatment records for PTSD associated with the claims file since 2016. These records document that the Veteran is constantly on guard and experiences clinically significant distress as a result of his service-connected PTSD. The Board notes in this regard that the Veteran's service-connected PTSD last was examined for VA adjudication purposes in December 2016, more than 5 years ago. The Court has held that when a Veteran alleges that his service-connected disability has worsened since he was examined previously, a new examination may be required to evaluate the current degree of impairment. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); but see Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 182 (2007) (finding "mere passage of time" does not render old examination inadequate). Given the Veteran's contentions, the additional medical records associated with the claims file since 2016, and the length of time which has elapsed since his most recent VA examination in December 2016, the Board finds that, on remand, he should be scheduled for an updated VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected PTSD. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Board previously found in the June 2021 remand that TDIU claim was reasonably raised by the record evidence. See Rice, 22 Vet. App. at 447. As noted in the Introduction, the RO complied with the Board's June 2021 remand directives concerning development of this claim, to the extent possible, since the Veteran's most recent former employer did not respond to VA's request for information. Because the higher initial rating claim for PTSD is being remanded in this decision, and because adjudication of this claim on remand likely will impact adjudication of the TDIU claim, the Board finds that these claims are inextricably intertwined. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998), citing Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that two issues are inextricably intertwined when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision on one issue cannot be rendered until the other issue has been considered). Thus, the TDIU claim also must be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran's updated treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for updated examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected PTSD, to include any functional or occupational impairment. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.