Citation Nr: 22017479 Decision Date: 03/25/22 Archive Date: 03/25/22 DOCKET NO. 19-32 593 DATE: March 25, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 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 military service from August 1968 to September 1970. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) following a January 2019 rating decision in which the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied a rating in excess of 50 percent for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. The Veteran participated in a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2021. A transcript of this hearing is of record. 1. Entitlement to a Rating in Excess of 50 Percent for PTSD The Veteran contends that the symptoms of his service-connected PTSD warrant a 70 percent evaluation rather than the 50 percent currently assigned. For the reasons to follow, the Board concludes that this matter must be remanded for additional development. First, the Veteran's most recent Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination regarding his PTSD was conducted in December 2018. While the Board is not required to remand an appeal to obtain a new VA examination simply due to the passage of time, a new VA examination is appropriate when the claimant asserts that the disability in question has undergone an increase in severity since the last VA examination. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007). During the February 2021 hearing, the Veteran and his representative offered testimony indicating that the Veteran's PTSD causes symptoms that are not discussed in the December 2018 examination report. Such symptoms include anger, impaired memory, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, anger, and disorientation to time or place. The Veteran's claims file also contains recent VA treatment records demonstrating that he was experiencing cognitive decline. This evidence suggests that the Veteran's PTSD may have increased in severity in the time since his last VA examination. In light of this, the Board finds that a new examination is needed upon remand in order to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms. See Palczewski, 21 Vet. App. at 181. Second, the AOJ last considered the rating assigned to the Veteran's PTSD when it issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) in August 2019. Relevant evidence has been added to the record, including VA treatment records noting cognitive issues. The Board is aware that the Veteran submitted a signed waiver of AOJ consideration in February 2021. However, the statement specifically states that the Veteran was waiving AOJ consideration of the private treatment records his representative submitted simultaneously with the waiver. There is no indication that this waiver pertains to the VA treatment records added to the record. A Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) must be furnished to the Veteran when additional pertinent evidence is received after a SOC has been issued. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b)(1). As pertinent evidence has been received since the August 2019 SOC, the Veteran's appeal must be remanded for the AOJ to review this evidence in the first instance before the Board may issue its decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31(b); see also Hickson v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 394, 399 (2010). 2. Entitlement to a TDIU Under certain circumstances, a claim for an increased rating for a service-connected disability includes a claim for entitlement to a TDIU. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2009). The Veteran and his representative have explicitly raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU throughout the period on appeal in the VA 21-8940, Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, statements accompanying his Notice of Disagreement and VA Form 9, and February 2021 hearing testimony. The claim for TDIU is raised as part and parcel of the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD. Rice, 22 Vet. App. at 455. The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is being remanded herein. As a determination on this issue may impact the Veteran's eligibility for a TDIU, the claims are considered inextricably intertwined. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The TDIU must be deferred. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. After reviewing the claims file, with any necessary examination and testing, the examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and social and occupational impairment due to his service-connected PTSD alone. 2. After undertaking the development directed above, readjudicate the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD in light of all additional evidence added to the record since the August 2019 SOC and adjudicate the claim for a TDIU. Provide the Veteran and his representative with an SSOC. An appropriate period should be allowed for a response. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R.M. Sachs, 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.