Citation Nr: 0006184 Decision Date: 03/08/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 97-05 935 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jason R. Davitian, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1971 to May 1972. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from a January 1996 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan (RO), which denied the benefit sought on appeal. REMAND The veteran essentially contends that the RO was incorrect in not granting the benefit sought on appeal. The veteran maintains, in substance, that the current 30 percent evaluation assigned for his PTSD does not adequately reflect the severity of that disability. He contends that his PTSD warrants a schedular 100 percent evaluation, or in the alternative that it warrants a schedular 70 percent evaluation that should be increased to 100 percent under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340(a)(2) and 4.15(c). Integral to each contention is the assertion that the veteran requires frequent and recurring hospital treatment that precludes employment. Therefore, a favorable determination has been requested. A preliminary review of the veteran's claims file indicates that his claim was certified to the Board in December 1997. In January 1999, the RO received a copy of a VA discharge summary and addendum for the period from October 23, 1998 to November 14, 1998. It does not appear that the RO adjudicated the veteran's claim in light of these records. In May 1999, the Board received these medical records and associated them with the claims file. Written argument made on the veteran's behalf was received by the Board in January 2000. The argument makes reference to the recently submitted VA discharge summary and addendum. However, a waiver of the right to readjudication by the RO pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1999) was not submitted with the additional treatment records dated in October and November 1998. As a result, the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for PTSD, along with the newly submitted treatment records, must be remanded to the RO for initial consideration. In this regard, the Board points out that such hospital treatment records are particularly important in light of allegations made on the veteran's behalf that his recurrent hospital treatment for PTSD precludes employment. In addition, the Board points out that any initial adjudication by the Board considering these treatment records that did not result in a full grant of benefits would be prejudicial to the veteran. The Board also notes that in July 1998 testimony given before the undersigned Board member, sitting at the RO, the veteran testified that he had recently been treated at the Community Hospital in Alma, Michigan, and at the CMU Hospital in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. He also stated he had just gotten out of the Saginaw VA hospital three days earlier. He reported he was currently receiving psychotherapy at the Vet Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The claims file does not include corresponding treatment records. The Board finds that such records are necessary for a proper adjudication of the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation, particularly in light of allegations made on his behalf that his recurrent hospital treatment for PTSD precludes employment. Therefore, in order to give the appellant every consideration with respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion that further development is necessary. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The veteran should be requested to provide the names, addresses, and dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have recently treated him for PTSD. Thereafter, in light of the response received and after obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO should take appropriate action to obtain copies of any clinical records indicated, including those from the Community Hospital in Alma, Michigan, the CMU Hospital in Mount Pleasant, Michigan, the Saginaw VA medical Center, and the Grand Rapids, Michigan, VA medical center, to include the Vet Center, which have not been previously secured. 2. After undertaking all additional indicated development, and on the basis of all additional evidence including that submitted by the veteran regarding VA inpatient treatment in October and November 1998, the RO should readjudicate the appellant's claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for PTSD. If the benefit sought is not granted, where a timely notice of disagreement is of record, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The purpose of the REMAND is to afford the appellant due process. The Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. The appellant is free to submit any additional evidence he desires to have considered in connection with his current appeal. No action is required of the appellant until he is notified. 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). U. R. POWELL 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).