Citation Nr: 22017406 Decision Date: 03/25/22 Archive Date: 03/25/22 DOCKET NO. 13-14 877 DATE: March 25, 2022 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to increased ratings for panic disorder with generalized anxiety disorder, currently rated 70 percent disabling prior to April 22, 2009, and 30 percent disabling from that date, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from May 1990 to April 1994. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2009 rating decision by the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Regional Office/Agency of Original Jurisdiction (RO/AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In October 2014, a Board hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript of the hearing is in the record. An April 2015 Board decision remanded, in pertinent part, the claim for an increased rating for panic disorder with generalized anxiety disorder for additional development. In July 2018, the Board granted a 70 percent rating for the Veteran's panic disorder with generalized anxiety disorder for the period prior to April 22, 2009. The Board's July 2018 decision furthermore denied the appeal to the extent that the Veteran sought further increases in the ratings for panic disorder with generalized anxiety disorder; the Board additionally denied claims of entitlement to service connection for other disabilities. The Veteran appealed the Board's July 2018 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In June 2019, the parties to the appeal (the Veteran, through his attorney, and a representative from VA General Counsel) filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand of the Board's decision (Joint Motion). The parties agreed that the Board's decision should be vacated and remanded insofar as it had "denied entitlement to (1) a rating for panic disorder with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in excess of 70% prior to April 22, 2009, and in excess of 30% thereafter, (2) service connection for cervical spine disc bulging, C3-4; and (3) service connection for a left arm disability, manifested by pain and tingling...." The Court granted the Joint Motion in July 2019. The Joint Motion made expressly clear that it did not seek to disturb that portion of the decision on appeal that granted an increased rating. In January 2020, the Board remanded the appeal for additional development to comply with the directives of the Joint Motion. During the processing of the Board's remand directives, the AOJ issued a rating decision in October 2021 that granted the service connection claims that had been in appellate status. The only issue from the Board's January 2020 remand that remains in appellate status at this time is the issue concerning the rating for the Veteran's mental health disorder. In June 2017, VA certified five additional issues to the Board (service connection for radiculopathy of the left and right lower extremities; an increased rating for status post right L1-L2 discectomy, degenerative disc disease T12-L1 and earlier effective dates for the award of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) and Dependents Educational Assistance (DEA) under Chapter 35) that are part of a separate appeal stream. The Board's January 2020 decision explained that the May 2017 substantive appeal (VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals) in connection with these claims shows that the Veteran has requested a Board hearing. The scheduling of the requested hearing remains pending, and the additional issues have not been incorporated into the current appeal stream. 1. The claim of entitlement to increased ratings for panic disorder with generalized anxiety disorder, currently rated 70 percent disabling prior to April 22, 2009, and 30 percent disabling from that date, is remanded. This case must be remanded again because one of the directives of the Board's prior January 2020 remand, necessary to comply with the directives of the Joint Motion, has not been completed. The Joint Motion explains that "[t]he parties agree that remand is required because the Board erred when it did not ensure VA complied with the April 2015 Board remand order." See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (a remand order by the Board or the Court imposes upon the Secretary a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand). Specifically, the Joint Motion discusses: "In the April 2015 Board decision, the Board remanded the claims on appeal and instructed that Appellant's complete (to the present) clinical records of any VA evaluations or treatment be obtained and included in the claims file (c-file). However, there was no attempt to obtain the outstanding VA treatment records on Appellant's behalf." The Joint Motion explains: "Therefore, upon remand, the Board must ensure that any outstanding VA treatment records are obtained and associated with Appellant's c-file. The Board shall accordingly remand this case to obtain the Veteran's outstanding VA treatment records." Accordingly, the Board's January 2020 remand directed: The AOJ should secure for the record copies of the complete updated (to the present) clinical records of any (and all) VA evaluations and/or treatment the Veteran has received for the disabilities at issue." Unfortunately, this action has not been completed. Although other aspects of the Board's remand directives have been completed, and some of the issues on appeal have been resolved, there has been no update of the Veteran's VA treatment records in the claims-file. The Board is compelled to remand for completion of this action. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders.). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: The AOJ should secure for the record copies of the complete updated (to the present) clinical records of any (and all) VA evaluations and/or treatment the Veteran has received for the disabilities at issue. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Barone, Alexander 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.