BVA9506111 DOCKET NO. 93-07 646 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder. Entitlement to an increased rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently rated 10 percent disabling. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for left ear hearing loss. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 31, 1990, for the grant of disability compensation for PTSD. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard V. Chamberlain, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to March 1972. This appeal arises from hearing officers’ and rating decisions beginning in September 1990 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida, that determined no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for a left knee disorder, granted service connection for PTSD and assigned it a 10 percent rating from July 31, 1990, (a temporary total rating was assigned from June 25 to September 1, 1991, based on the veteran's VA hospitalization from June 25 to August 16, 1991, for treatment of this disorder), and denied a compensable rating for left ear hearing loss. The veteran disagrees with the denial of service connection for a left knee disorder, the ratings assigned for PTSD and left ear hearing loss, and the effective date assigned for the grant of disability compensation for PTSD. The case was received at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in April 1993. In 1980, the veteran applied for service connection for residuals of a left knee injury from gunshot wounds. A July 1981 RO rating decision, in part, granted service connection for a left knee scar from a machete cut and assigned a zero percent rating, and denied service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis. Later in July 1981, the RO notified the veteran that his claim for disability benefits was disallowed. This notice did not clearly notify him of the denial of service connection for left knee arthritis. Because he was never notified of the denial, his claim cannot be said to have been "finally adjudicated" within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(d) (1982). Hence, the claim for service connection for a left knee disorder must be considered on a de novo basis. As the RO has adjudicated this issue as an application to reopen a previously denied claim with new and material evidence, the case must be returned for readjudication on the basis of all the evidence of record. REMAND The record shows that the veteran's claims are well grounded, meaning that they are plausible. VA has a duty to assist him in developing facts pertinent to well-grounded claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1994). The duty to assist includes obtaining all relevant records and providing an adequate VA examination. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The evidence indicates that the veteran was hospitalized at the VA medical facility in Tampa, Florida, on May 28, 1991, for alcohol abuse and that the RO requested a summary of this hospitalization. Correspondence from the veteran in August 1991 indicates that he was transferred from the Tampa VA medical facility to the Bay Pines VA medical facility on June 25, 1991. A summary of his hospitalization at the Bay Pines VA medical facility from June 25 to August 16, 1991 is of record, but not the summary of his hospitalization at the Tampa VA medical facility from May 28 to June 25, 1991. This latter hospital report should be obtained and included in the record. Murphy, 1 Vet.App. 78. The representative in the written argument of September 1993 requested a VA psychiatric examination of the veteran to determine the current severity of his PTSD prior to appellate consideration of the claim for a higher rating for this disorder. A review of the record indicates that the veteran has not undergone recent psychiatric examination. The duty to assist the veteran includes obtaining a thorough and contemporaneous examination. Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 281 (1993). All reports of recent VA treatment for the conditions being considered in this appeal should also be secured, in light of the VA duty to obtain reports of ongoing treatment. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). In view of the above, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain a summary of the veteran's hospitalization at the Tampa VA medical facility from May 28 to June 25, 1991, and reports of any VA outpatient and inpatient treatment from 1992 for the disabilities being considered in this appeal. 2. The veteran should be scheduled for VA psychiatric examination to determine the severity of his PTSD. All indicated studies should be performed and all clinical findings reported in detail. The psychiatrist should study the veteran's psychiatric history and delineate the specific manifestations attributable to each psychiatric disability found, including alcohol and drug abuse. The examiner should specifically discuss the effects of each psychiatric disability found on the veteran's employability, and support all opinions by discussing medical principles as applied to specific medical evidence in his case. The examiner must assign a Global Assessment of Functioning Score consistent with the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev. 1987), and explain what the assigned score represents. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. In order to assist the psychiatrist in providing the requested information, the claims folder should be made available to the doctor prior to the examination. 3. After the above development, the RO should adjudicate the veteran's entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, and review the other claims. If any decision remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. J. E. DAY 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 determination. 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 remand 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).