BVA9503297 DOCKET NO. 93-12 212 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for paranoid type schizophrenia, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Marion O. White WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeffrey A. Pisaro, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from December 1972 to August 1975. This appeal arises from an August 1991 rating decision of the New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office (RO). The duty to assist includes affording the veteran a thorough and contemporaneous examination that takes into account the records of prior medical treatment. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991). This is to ensure that the evaluation of a disability is a fully informed one. The severity of psychiatric disability is based upon actual symptomatology as it affects social and industrial adaptability. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.129, 4.130 (1993). Since the last Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) psychiatric rating examination in September 1992, additional treatment records have been associated with the claims folder including a January 1993 statement from Charles Bertrand, M.D. Dr. Bertrand opined that the veteran was totally disabled for gainful employment due to chronic schizophrenia. Moreover, a February 1992 notice from the Social Security Administration (SSA) indicates that the veteran had been awarded disability benefits; however, the decision granting benefits and the medical records upon which that decision was based have not been obtained. In view of the foregoing, the Board is persuaded that the veteran should be afforded a further VA psychiatric examination in connection with this appeal. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertaining to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the duty to assist includes obtaining available records which are relevant to the claimant's appeal. The duty to assist is neither optional nor discre- tionary. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The veteran has been receiving continuing treatment for his psychosis at Acadiana Mental Health Center; complete records should be obtained from that facility. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and obtain the names and addresses of all mental health care providers from whom he has received treatment in recent years. Thereafter, the RO should obtain legible copies of all records which have not already been obtained, to include those from Acadiana Mental Health Center from March 1993 to the present. Once obtained, all records must be associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should obtain from the SSA copies of the medical records upon which the veteran was determined to be entitled to SSA disability benefits. 3. Following completion of the above development, the veteran should be afforded a comprehensive VA examination in psychiatry. This study should be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated tests, including appropriate psychological studies with applicable subscales, should be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination. The disability should be evaluated in relation to its history, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity, to include time lost from employment, imposed by the service-connected schizophrenia. The examiner should assign a Global Assessment of Functioning Score consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual For Mental Disorders, and explain what the assigned score represents. In addition, the examiner should also discuss the impairment of social and industrial adaptability attributable to the psychosis (as distinct from impairment attributable to other conditions). 4. When the requested development is fully completed, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim. The rating decision should reflect consideration of the appli- cability of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.7, 4.129, and 4.130. If the claim is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, he and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case. They should then be afforded the applicable time to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. GARY L. GICK Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a deter- mination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).