Citation Nr: 0001604 Decision Date: 01/19/00 Archive Date: 01/28/00 DOCKET NO. 95-13 228 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for service- connected iritis and conjunctivitis, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for service- connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently rated as 50 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Howard M. Scott, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from November 1960 to June 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from November 1994 and February 197 rating decisions by the St. Louis, Missouri, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The veteran appealed these decisions to the Board and, in October 30, 1998, the Board denied the veteran's claims on appeal. The veteran then appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an April 30, 1999, Order, the Court, upon joint motion of VA and the veteran, vacated the Board's October 30, 1998, decision, and remanded the case for additional actions more particularly set forth in the joint motion. REMAND Evidence of record shows that the veteran's service-connected eye disability is of an intermittently active nature involving flare-ups of approximately two weeks duration. The November 1996 VA eye examination was conducted during inactive or minimally active phases of his iritis and conjunctivitis. Therefore, an additional examination, conducted during the active phase of the veteran's eye iritis and conjunctivitis, is required, pursuant to Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405 (1994). With regard to the veteran's service-connected PTSD, the current evidence is ambiguous as to the severity of psychiatric symptoms attributable to the PTSD. Additional VA examination is therefore necessary to assist the veteran and to ensure an adequate record for eventual appellate review. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Any VA pertinent VA medical records documenting continuing treatment which are not already in the claims file should be made of record. 2. The RO should coordinate with the veteran and the appropriate VA medical facility to arrange for the veteran to immediately contact VA when he suffers a flare up of his service-connected eye disability. Upon notification from the veteran that an active phase has commenced, the RO and the VA medical facility should take immediate steps to afford the veteran a VA eye examination during the flare up phase of the service- connected disability to ascertain the severity of impairment due to the service-connected iritis and conjunctivitis. The claims folder and a copy of this remand should be furnished to the examiner and be thoroughly reviewed in connection with the examination. All appropriate tests and/or studies should be conducted. The examiner is requested to clearly report all symptoms (including any pain and hypersensitivity to light) of the service-connected iritis and conjunctivitis and to clearly differentiate symptoms attributable to the service-connected iritis and conjunctivitis as opposed to any nonservice-connected eye disorder(s). 3. In addition, the RO should schedule the veteran for a comprehensive VA psychiatric examination to determine the extent and severity of the veteran's service-connected PTSD. The claims folder and a copy of this remand should be furnished to the examiner and be thoroughly reviewed in connection with the examination. All appropriate tests and/or studies should be conducted. If possible, the examiner is requested to clearly report all symptoms attributable only to the PTSD as opposed to any nonservice-connected disorder(s). The examiner is further requested to provide, if possible, a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score consistent with the criteria in the DSM-IV, based solely on the impairment of functioning due to PTSD. In addition, the examiner is requested to explain what the assigned GAF score means in terms of social and industrial impairment. 4. Following completion of the above, the RO should readjudicate the issues of increased rating for iritis and conjunctivitis and for PTSD under all applicable laws and regulations (including consideration of old and new rating criteria in view of Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308 (1991)). The veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review. The purpose of this remand is to assist the veteran, to ensure a proper record for appellate review and to comply with the Court's Order which granted the joint motion of the veteran and VA. The veteran and his representative have the right to submit additional evidence and argument in connection with this matter. 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. ALAN S. PEEVY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (1999).