BVA9506163 DOCKET NO. 93-14 507 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for schizoaffective disorder, currently rated 70 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. L. Kennedy, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from March 1976 to August 1977. This appeal arises from a November 1989 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Regional Office (RO). In that decision, the RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for service-connected schizoaffective disorder. In a September 1990 rating decision, the RO formally implemented a September 1990 Hearing Officer decision which granted, in pertinent part, a 50 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected psychiatric disorder. In a December 1992 rating decision, which formally implemented a subsequent Hearing Officer decision, a 70 percent disability evaluation was assigned the veteran's schizoaffective disorder. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) notes that the records assembled for appellate review include numerous private and VA medical records reflecting treatment for the psychiatric disability at issue through August 1992. Although these records provide substantial evidence that must be considered in evaluating the current degree of impairment which may be attributed to the veteran's service-connected schizoaffective disorder, the Board observes that the veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for rating purposes in many years. The VA has a duty to assist a claimant in the development of facts pertinent to his or her claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that fulfillment of the VA's duty to assist the veteran includes providing him with a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990). The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence of record and has determined that a current VA examination for rating purposes is necessary in this case. In connection with the current appeal, the Board observes that the veteran has been afforded two personal hearings held at the RO in March 1990 and in July 1992. At the time of the July 1992 hearing, confusing information was provided as to the veteran's current employment status. The veteran testified that he had worked at Armstrong World Industries in Beaver Falls for the past seven years, but that he had recently quit. He later testified that his job was being held for him until he was medically able to return. The Board notes that the extensive medical evidence of record confirm the veteran's continued employment over the past several years, including a promotion in 1991. However, the record on appeal does not include information obtained directly from the veteran's employer regarding his attendance, job performance, and current employment status. The RO should contact this employer and request information regarding these matters. Testimony was also elicited at the most recent RO hearing that the veteran had been awarded disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. The RO should ensure that all relevant documents, including related medical records, are associated with the assembled records. Fulfillment of the duty to assist the appellant includes the procurement and consideration of any relevant VA or other medical records. Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 326 (1991). The record reflects that the veteran has received ongoing treatment for his service-connected psychiatric disorder from Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, M.D. of Beaver County Psychiatric Services, as well treatment at the Highland Drive, VA Medical Center in Pittsburgh. The RO should associate all relevant medical records from those facilities with the record on appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in order to fairly and fully adjudicate the veteran's claim, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain any available treatment records from the Highland Drive, VA Medical Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, dated from August 1992 through the present. 2. The RO should obtain any available treatment records from Suzanne Vogel- Scibilia, M.D., Beaver County Psychiatric Services, 737 5th Avenue, New Brighton, Pennsylvania 15066, dated from July 1991 through the present. 3. The RO should contact Armstrong World Industries and request information as to the veteran's attendance, job performance, and current employment status. 4. The RO should request from the Social Security Administration a copy of the decision which reportedly awarded disability benefits to the veteran as well as the medical and other records relied upon in their determination. 5. The veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and extent of his schizoaffective disorder. This examination should be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination and the examiner should review that file prior to the examination. Any psychological testing deemed necessary to make a complete diagnostic evaluation and to differentiate symptoms attributable to schizoaffective disorder from those due to other conditions should be accomplished. Primary personality disorders should be fully described and classified. The examination report should contain all five multiaxial assessment levels as provided in the Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, including a numerical and narrative assess- ment of the veteran's level of functioning as measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning scale. Additionally, the examiner should comment on the manner and extent to which the schizoaffective disorder results in social and industrial inadaptability, and provide an opinion as to whether this disorder precludes substantially gainful employment. 8. After the above actions have been completed, the case should again be reviewed by the RO, to include the adjudication of the issue of entitlement to a total rating under the pertinent provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (1994). The rating should reflect consideration of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). If the determination remains adverse to the veteran, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case which includes a summary of additional evidence, any additional applicable laws and regulations, and the reasons for the decision. The veteran and his representative should 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. 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) (1994).