Citation Nr: 25005151 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 17-66 205 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER REMANDED 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to total disability due to individual unemployability is remanded. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August to December 1966 and from May 1968 to August 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of October 2014, May 2015, and January 2018, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); this case is in VA's legacy appeals system. In March 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record. In October 2024, the Board remanded the issue on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. However, the Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has again not substantially complied with prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). While the Veteran has initially filed a claim for an increased rating for his service-connected unspecified anxiety disorder with alcohol use disorder (previously rated as anxiety disorder NOS (claimed as PTSD)), in light of Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Board finds that it is appropriate to recharacterize the claim more broadly as one of entitlement to an increased rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. In the July and October 2024 remands, the Board directed the AOJ to obtain an addendum opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board's July 2024 remand noted that addendum opinions were provided in January 2024, February 2024, and April 2024; but none of these opinions addressed a December 2023 private positive opinion that was of record at the time the opinions were provided. As previously noted by the Board, this suggests that the Veteran's entire claims file was not reviewed prior to providing said opinions. Since the July 2024 and October 2024 remands, examinations were scheduled that the Veteran did not attend. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has continued to refuse to attend examinations despite continued pursuit of this appeal. VA's duty to assist is not always a one-way street and if a Veteran wishes for help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining relevant evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Furthermore, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b), when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied. However, in both the July 2024 and October 2024 Board remands, there was a directive to obtain an addendum opinion regardless of the Veteran's attendance at an examination. An addendum opinion, regardless of the availability of the Veteran, is required to address the issue discussed above. 2. Entitlement to total disability due to individual unemployability Finally, because a decision on the remanded issue of entitlement to a disability rating greater than 30 percent for an acquired psychiatric disorder could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim for entitlement to a TDIU is required. The Veteran is reminded that he should cooperate and provide any needed development if he seeks this benefit. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected unspecified anxiety disorder with alcohol use disorder. 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 psychiatric disorder alone. If an examination is unable to be scheduled or the Veteran does not appear at the examination, the examiner should provide an addendum opinion that addresses the following evidence: (a.) Findings and opinions of private provider Dr. J.R., submitted to the Board in August 2020. (b.) Lay statements and testimony of the Veteran and his spouse at the March 2020 Board hearing. (c.) Written lay statements submitted to the Board in March 2020; and (d.) Private December 2023 psychiatric evaluation from C.N.R. Ph.D. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to a TDIU. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veterans satisfaction, send the Veteran and representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.