Citation Nr: 22028445 Decision Date: 05/13/22 Archive Date: 05/13/22 DOCKET NO. 18-01 152 DATE: May 13, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, prior to December 7, 2021 is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression since December 7, 2021 is remanded. Entitlement to a finding of rating of total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 1967 to December 1968. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision issued by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). These claims have been previously remanded twice for additional development, most recently in May 2021. The Board ordered a new VA mental health examination and instructed the examiner to opine as to whether it was more likely than not that the Veteran's memory impairments were a symptom of his service-connected psychiatric conditions. The case now returns to the Board after substantial compliance with the ordered development; therefore, there has been compliance with the Board's prior remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (2008). At the December 2021 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran had been diagnosed with major neurocognitive disorder (Alzheimer's) and depressive disorder. The examiner noted that the symptoms of each of these disorders could not be distinguished or attributed to a specific diagnosis. He concluded that the Veteran's memory impairments were at least as likely as not a symptom of his service-connected psychiatric disorder. Regrettably, however, another remand is required to obtain relevant private treatment records from the Veteran's neurologist. VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). VA's duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim also includes making reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private medical records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(1). VA treatment records from November 2018 and March 2019 reference a private neurologist who was treating the Veteran's neurocognitive disorder, which was at times described as Alzheimer's, memory problems or dementia. These treatment records are relevant to the severity and functional impact of his memory problems during the period on appeal. However, these records are not in the claims file. Therefore, a remand is warranted to obtain these records. Because the Veteran has claimed entitlement to TDIU, in part, because of his acquired psychiatric disability, the Veteran's TDIU claim is inextricably intertwined with the remanded issue. Adjudication of TDIU must be deferred. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate updated VA records with the claims file. 2. Contact the Veteran and request properly executed releases, for any private care providers who have treated him for his psychiatric and/or neurocognitive disorders, to include dementia, memory problems or Alzheimer's disease. Records from the private neurologist who treated the Veteran's Alzheimer's disease should be specifically requested. Upon receipt of such, VA must take appropriate action to contact the identified providers and request complete treatment records. The Veteran should be informed that in the alternative he may obtain and submit the records himself. 3. After the above has been completed, obtain an addendum opinion regarding the severity and functional impact of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disabilities since March 2013. The entire claims file must be made available for review. The need for a new examination is at the discretion of the reviewer. 4. Then, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any benefit sought remains denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and return the appeal to the Board. S. T. Baxter Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Megan-Brady Viccellio 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.