Citation Nr: 0002092 Decision Date: 01/27/00 Archive Date: 02/02/00 DOCKET NO. 97-29 444A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for post-traumatic stress disorder, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. 2. Competency to handle disbursement of funds. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Graham, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from March 1968 to June 1971, and his service separation record reveals that he had an additional 8 months and 3 days of service. The instant appeal as to the increased rating claim arose from a February 1996 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in Nashville, Tennessee, which denied a claim for an increased rating for PTSD. The appeal as to the competency claim arose from a June 1998 rating decision which denied a claim for competency. REMAND The appellant contends, in substance, that his service- connected PTSD is more severe than the current disability evaluation suggests; therefore, he believes an increased rating is warranted. He also asserts that he is competent to handle his VA funds. Initially, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) finds that the appellant has submitted evidence which is sufficient to justify a belief that his claims for an increased rating and for a determination of competency are well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991) and Murphy v Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990). That is, he has presented claims which are plausible. A claim that a condition has become more severe is well grounded where the condition was previously service-connected and rated, and the claimant subsequently asserts that a higher rating is justified due to an increase in severity since the original rating. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 629, 632 (1992). Thus, VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all facts pertinent to his claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1999). The Board notes that the record includes a March 30, 1999, VA examination report which referred to VA treatment records dated in February and March 1999. The examiner noted that these records included a VA psychiatric evaluation and a period of hospitalization for treatment of fever and "confusion." Thus, these records appear to be pertinent to the veteran's claims on appeal. The most recent VA treatment records contained in the claims folder, however, are dated in April 1998. As VA records are considered to be constructively included within the record, and must be acquired if material to an issue on appeal, it is necessary to obtain the aforementioned medical records prior to a final decision in this case. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should request the veteran to provide the RO with information regarding any evidence of current or past treatment for his psychiatric and cognitive disorders that has not already been made part of the record, and should assist him in obtaining such evidence following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1999). a. VA treatment records from the VA Medical Center (MC) in Memphis, Tennessee, since April 1998 should be developed. b. Treatment records from The King's Daughters and Sons Home, 1467 East McLemore Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee, 38106-3699 should also be developed. Any such records should then be associated with the VA claims folder. 2. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development action has been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. Thereafter, the RO shall determine whether the appellant's claims may now be allowed. If not, provide the appellant and his representative, if applicable, with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, indicating that he has a reasonable time to respond, and return the case to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. This REMAND is to develop evidence and to ensure the appellant is afforded due process of law. The Board intimates no opinion as to the final outcome warranted in this case. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the RO. 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 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. C. P. RUSSELL 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).