BVA9501080 DOCKET NO. 93-11 850 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for schizophrenia, paranoid type, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert P. Regan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from September 1982 to July 1984. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 1992 rating determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) located in Montgomery, Alabama. In the December 1992 decision, the RO denied entitlement to an increased evaluation for schizophrenia and a total rating based on unemployability. The appellant in his notice of disagreement, dated in January 1993, indicated the he was disagreeing with the denial of entitlement to a total rating based on unemployability. The April 1993 statement of the case was confined to this issue. The Board is of the opinion the issue of an increased rating for schizophrenia, paranoid type, is included in the issue of entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability, and that this issue is properly before the Board for appellate consideration. REMAND A review of the record reflects that the appellant was awarded disability benefits by the Social Security Administration (SSA) effective in March 1988. The Social Security notice of award indicated that the veteran's case was to be reviewed "in about 3 years." The veteran in his substantive appeal asserted that review of the "complete decisional document" from the SSA would reflect that his service-connected psychiatric disorder prevents him from any gainful employment. The Board is of the opinion that the evidence on which the original decision by the SSA as well as that upon which any subsequent SSA decision was based may be pertinent to the appellant's claim. In his substantive appeal, the appellant requested consideration of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). In Fisher v. Principi, 4 Vet.App. 57 (1993), the Court held that in a claim for a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability, where the disability rating did not entitle the appellant to a total disability rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), the rating board must also consider the applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b), and that the decision (or non-decision) by the RO whether to refer a case to the Director for extra- schedular consideration under § 4.16(b) is an adjudicative decision subject to review by the Board and the Court. While the appellant's claim was pending before the Board, pertinent medical evidence was submitted in August 1993 which the RO has not had the opportunity to review in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (1993). The Board is also of the opinion that a contemporaneous and thorough VA examination would be of assistance to the Board in rendering a decision in this case. In accordance with the statutory duty to assist the appellant in the development of evidence pertinent to his claim, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should request the veteran to identify all sources of recent psychiatric treatment. Copies of the medical records from all sources he identifies (not already in the claims folder) should then be obtained and added to the claims folder. 2. The RO should take the appropriate action in order to obtain copies of all medical records utilized by the SSA in awarding disability benefits to the appellant or in any subsequent review of the appellant's continued entitlement to SSA benefits. 3. A VA social and industrial survey should be conducted in order to determine the impact the veteran's schizophrenia has on his social and industrial adaptability. The claims folders must be made available to the social worker in conjunction with the survey as it contains important historical data. The veteran's medical, social, educational and employment background should be summarized and any other information needed to develop a complete picture of his employment prospects and the conditions which limit his employment opportunities should be identified. 4. A VA examination should be conducted by a psychiatrist in order to determine the severity of the appellant's psychiatric illness. All testing deemed necessary should be performed. It is requested that the examiner assign a numerical code in accordance with the Global of Assessment Functioning (GAF) Scale, American Psychiatric Association; Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The examiner is also requested to include a definition of the numerical code assigned. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. 5. Thereafter, the RO should adjudicate the appellant's claims. If the schedular rating for the veteran's psychiatric disorder is increased to 70 percent, the decision should reflect consideration of the applicability of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(c). If the schedular rating for the psychiatric disorder is not increased to 70 percent, the rating decision should reflect consideration of the applicability of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1) and 4.16(b). If the benefits sought are not granted, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, to include the appropriate law and regulations and rating criteria for entitlement to an increased evaluation for schizophrenia, paranoid type, as well as a discussion of the applicability of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1) and 4.16(b) or (c). After the appellant and his representative have had an opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 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 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) (1993).