BVA9507957 DOCKET NO. 93-14 783 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for nonservice-connected pension purposes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from September 1961 to May 1965, and again from January 1971 to June 1975. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of May 1992 from the Montgomery, Alabama, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for nonservice-connected pension purposes. In an April 1991 statement, the veteran indicated that the disabilities which precluded employment included nerve, back and leg problems, a "nervous condition" and arthritis. The veteran also requested a VA examination to assess the severity of all the disabilities which he claims had caused unemployability. In a subsequent statement received in July 1991, he also indicated that he was unable to see clearly, i.e., that he has a visual disability. The veteran also submitted an August 1991 report of psychiatric evaluation of Claude M. Holland, Jr., M.D., which was conducted pursuant to a claim for Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. Dr. Holland reported that the veteran suffered from long-standing chronic depression. The veteran also reported a history of additional physical disabilities, including chronic alcoholism, broken bones, residuals of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, a shoulder disorder and neurologic deficit of the right upper extremity. In the May 1993 substantive appeal, the veteran argued that the RO did not adequately review all the medical evidence in support of his claim. It does not appear that the veteran has been afforded a VA medical examinations for all the claimed disabilities. It also does not appear that the RO assigned a percentage rating for each disability claimed. In Roberts v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 387, 390 (1992), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) held that each disability in a pension case must be assigned a percentage rating, that the RO should discuss the diagnostic codes used in evaluating a claim, that a rating decision may not be based on an examination that was conducted before all relevant evidence was gathered, and that the effect of pain on employability must be addressed. In Brown v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 444, 446-47 (1992), the Court held that a pension claim must be considered under both the average person standard and the unemployability standard. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1502(a) (West 1991); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.17 (1993). This has not been accomplished for all the claimed disabilities in the present case. Consequently, additional development is necessary in order to comply with the applicable laws and regulations as set forth in Roberts and Brown. As previously indicated, Dr. Holland's August 1991 psychiatric evaluation was conducted pursuant to a claim for SSA disability benefits. In the substantive appeal the veteran stated that he had been awarded SSA disability benefits. A copy of the decision awarding those benefits has not been requested. It is also unclear whether all the records associated with that determination have been obtained. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board is of the opinion that additional assistance is required. The case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should request the veteran to submit a written statement clarifying all the disabilities which he claims have caused unemployability. The veteran should also identify the names and addresses of any medical care providers, VA or otherwise, who have treated him for any of the claimed disabilities, and any treatment received since February 1992. After obtaining any needed authorization from the veteran, the RO should request copies of all these records. 2. The RO should obtain a copy of the SSA disability determination and the medical records upon which that decision was based. The claims folder already contains Dr. Holland's August 1991 psychiatric evaluation report. Any evidence obtained should be made part of the claims folder. 3. The veteran should then be afforded general medical, psychiatric, and neurologic examinations in order to determine the severity and manifestations of any current disabilities. The scope of the examinations should be broad enough to cover all diseases, injuries, and residual conditions which are suggested by the veteran's complaints, symptoms or findings at the time of examinations. The examinations should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The disabilities should be evaluated in relation to their history, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity, specifically employability, imposed by any disabling conditions. The examiners must be provided the claims folder for review. The psychiatric diagnostic formulation should include a numerical and narrative assessment of the veteran's level of functioning as measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale code. 4. The RO should then readjudicate the veteran's claim. The rating decision should list all of the veteran's disabilities and the percentage evaluation assigned each disability. If a permanent and total rating for pension purposes is denied under both the average person and the unemployability standards, the rating should reflect consideration of the applicability of 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(2). If a permanent and total rating for pension purposes remains denied, the supplemental statement of the case should cite the appropriate diagnostic codes and provide a discussion of their applicability to the veteran's disabilities. This document should also provide a discussion of the two standards (average person and unemployability) by which a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes may be assigned, as well as the applicability of 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(2). The veteran and his representative should then be afforded the applicable time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and ensure that the veteran is afforded all due process of law. The Board intimates no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate conclusion warranted in this case. No action by the veteran is required until he is contacted by the RO. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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) (1994).