BVA9505604 DOCKET NO. 93-15 557 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUE Entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. O'Brien, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from April 1951 to April 1953. He was born in January 1933. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 1993 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. During the development of this case by the RO, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has decided several cases which impact significantly on the issue of nonservice-connected pension. In Roberts v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 387, 390 (1992), the 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 denying 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 on both the average standard and the unemployability standard. See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1502(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.17 (1994). The RO has not had the opportunity to address these matters. The Board notes that the evidence pertaining to one of the veteran's disabilities, his psychiatric disorder, appears to be inconsistent. Heriberto D. Lourido-Ferrer, M.D., stated in October 1991 that the veteran had undifferentiated schizophrenia which rendered him totally disabled socially, emotionally and industrially. However, when the veteran was accorded a psychiatric examination by VA in September 1992, other than a depressed mood, blunted affect, and fear, insight and judgment, findings were essentially unremarkable. The Axis I diagnosis was dysthymia. There was no Axis II diagnosis. No diagnostic testing was done. Also, a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score was not provided. In view of the foregoing and the Board's duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim, as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991), the Board is persuaded that further development is warranted. Therefore, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers who have treated him for any disability, including psychiatric disability, in recent years, as well as the approximate dates of treatment thereof. Then, after any necessary authorization is obtained from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of those treatment records identified by the veteran. 2. The RO should schedule the veteran for a general medical examination, a psychiatric examination, and any other examinations it deems advisable, to determine the nature, severity and manifestations of all disabilities that may be present. It is imperative that the examiners review the entire claims folder prior to the examinations. A social and industrial history should be recorded and all indicated tests should be conducted. The psychiatric examiner should assign a GAF score and explain what the assigned score represents. Each examiner should render an opinion as to what effects the disabilities found have on the veteran's ability to work, and state whether the veteran's disabling conditions are susceptible to improvement through appropriate treatment. The factors upon which the opinions are based should be set forth. 3. When the requested developments have been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO, and a rating decision prepared which lists all the veteran's disabilities and the percentage evaluation assigned for each disability. The RO should then review the evidence and determine whether the claim of entitlement to a permanent and total rating for pension purposes may now be granted, utilizing the average person and unemployability standards. Thereafter, if the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case and the veteran and his representative should be provided the applicable time period in which to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified 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 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 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).