Citation Nr: 0007218 Decision Date: 03/16/00 Archive Date: 03/23/00 DOCKET NO. 96-49 804 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD W. R. Steyn, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from May 1954 to January 1974. He had two tours of duty of Vietnam, one from August 1965 to August 1966 and the other from October 1968 to March 1969. He received the Purple Heart Medal. This appeal arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1996 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston- Salem, North Carolina, which denied the veteran's claim seeking entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The veteran's claim was before the Board in February 1998 and April 1998, at which time it was remanded for additional development. FINDINGS OF FACT The record includes a diagnosis of PTSD, and the claim for service connection for PTSD is plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The record includes evidence establishing a well-grounded claim for service connection for PTSD. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION In Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Epps v. West, 118 S. Ct. 2348 (1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that, under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a duty to assist only those claimants who have established well grounded (i.e., plausible) claims. More recently, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court or CAVC) issued a decision holding that VA cannot assist a claimant in developing a claim which is not well grounded. Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (July 14, 1999), req. for en banc consideration by a judge denied, No. 96-1517 (U.S. Vet. App. July 28, 1999) (per curiam). Once a claimant has submitted evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that a claim is well-grounded, the claimant's initial burden has been met, and VA is obligated under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim. Accordingly, the threshold question that must be resolved in this appeal is whether the appellant has presented evidence that the claim is well grounded; that is, that the claim is plausible. In this case, the veteran served in Vietnam, and he has been treated at VA facilities with a psychiatric diagnoses including PTSD. The evidence of record is sufficient to make the claim plausible and, therefore, well grounded. ORDER As the claim for service connection for PTSD is well grounded, the appeal to this extent is allowed subject to further action as discussed below. REMAND The law requires full compliance with all orders in this remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Although the instructions in this remand should be carried out in a logical chronological sequence, no instruction in this remand may be given a lower order of priority in terms of the necessity of carrying out the instruction completely. The veteran's claim has been remanded on two occasions in order to schedule him for a VA psychiatric examination to determine whether or not he has PTSD, and the RO has conscientiously attempted to carry out the remand instructions. However, in the appellant's March 2000 brief, the veteran's representative requested that the Board remand the veteran's claim once again. It was pointed out that, although the record is unclear as to why the veteran did not report for his scheduled examination, that the veteran served two tours of duty in Vietnam and received the Purple Heart medal. It is also noted by the Board that the veteran has changed his address on numerous occasions. Because the RO has requested a remand based, in part, on the suggestion that the veteran may not have received his examination notice, additional development, with the assistance of the representative, is warranted for the purpose of assuring that this Purple Heart recipient is afforded a fair and equitable adjudication of his claim. Under the circumstances described above, additional development of the veteran's claim should be accomplished. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the RO for the following: 1. The RO and any physician to whom this case is assigned for an examination and/or a statement of medical opinion must read the entire remand, to include the explanatory paragraphs above the numbered instructions. 2. The RO must first attempt to obtain the veteran's correct mailing address and document such address in the claims folder. The RO should contact the veteran's representative in an effort to obtain the veteran's correct address, and, in doing so, the RO should request that the representative attempt to keep VA informed of the veteran's current address. 3. The RO should assure that copies of all current records of treatment of the veteran's psychiatric disorders are included in the claims folder. All correspondence from the RO to the veteran should be directed to the veteran's correct mailing address. 4. After any treatment records are obtained in accordance with paragraph three, the RO should take the appropriate steps to contact the veteran at his correct address, and schedule him for a VA psychiatric examination to determine whether the veteran has PTSD. A copy of the letter advising the veteran of the date, time, and location of the examination should be provided to the veteran's representative. The representative should be requested to attempt to verify the accuracy of the mailing address on the examination notice and assure that the veteran receives the notice. A copy of the letter advising the veteran of the date, time and location of the examination should be placed in the claims folder. In reaching a determination as to whether the veteran has PTSD, the examiner should take into account, his own findings on examination of the veteran, the entire medical record, the veteran's combat record and service-connected shell fragment wounds, and all applicable provisions of DSM-IV. All special studies or tests, as deemed appropriate by the examiner, to include psychological testing and evaluation, should be accomplished. The claims folder, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination. 5. After the development requested above has been completed, the RO should review the veteran's claims folder and ensure that all the foregoing development has been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action should be taken. 6. Upon completion of the above, the RO should review the evidence of record and enter its determination with respect to entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In the event that the claim is not resolved to the satisfaction of the appellant, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case, a copy of which should be provided the veteran, and his representative. After they have been given an opportunity to submit additional argument, the case should be returned to the Board for further review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. G. H. SHUFELT Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals