Citation Nr: 0003481 Decision Date: 02/10/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 98-09 051 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C.A. Skow, Counsel REMAND The appellant served on active duty from June 1966 to May 1968. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a January 1998 rating decision of the Buffalo, New York, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO). A review of the claims folder discloses that, in May 1998, the VA was notified of a decision favorable to appellant by the Social Security Administration (SSA). This decision clearly reflects that the appellant's psychiatric condition was considered with respect to the grant of benefits. However, those records relied upon by SSA have not been obtained. Therefore, remand is necessary so that VARO may request from SSA any records pertaining to the grant of disability benefits, and consider any records obtained when readjudicating the instant claim. See Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990) and Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). Additionally, the claims folder includes evidence that the appellant received treatment from S. Patel, M.D., for psychiatric symptoms, but this physician's treatment records have not been requested. Remand is also necessary so that these records may be requested. See Littke supra. Since remand is necessary so that additional medical may be accumulated with which to evaluate the appellant's claim of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for PTSD, the Board believes that another VA psychiatric examination would be helpful to ensure that an adequate examination has been performed with respect to the claimed disability. We note that decisions of the Board must be based on all of the evidence available. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). The duty to assist includes the duty to request information, which may be pertinent to the claim, and to develop pertinent facts by conducting a thorough medical examination. See Littke supra. Furthermore, in general, an adequate examination requires that a disability be viewed in relation to its whole history. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). To ensure full compliance with due process requirements and the VA's duty to assist, the case is REMANDED to VARO for the following development: 1. VARO should obtain from the Social Security Administration the records pertinent to the appellant's claim for Social Security disability benefits as well as the medical records relied upon concerning that claim. 2. The appellant should be asked to provide a list with names and addresses of all medical care providers who have treated him for PTSD since January 1997. After securing the necessary authorization, where necessary, VARO should obtain all records of any treatment reported by the appellant that are not already in the claims folder and, in particular, those records dated since August 1996 from S. Patell, M.D., and dated since February 1997 from G. Peller, M.D., along with VA outpatient treatment records dated since February 1998. 3. The appellant should be scheduled for a VA psychiatric examination. The claims folder, to specifically include a copy of the psychiatric rating criteria, effective November 7, 1996, should be made available to the examiner for review prior to the examination. All indicated tests should be accomplished and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. The examiner must assign a numerical code under the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) and explain the basis for the assignment of that GAF code. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report containing a full rationale for any opinion expressed. 4. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters that the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). 5. After the aforementioned actions are completed, VARO should readjudicate the issue on appeal. To the extent the benefits sought are not granted, the appellant and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. This document should include reasons and bases for the holding. Thereafter, the appellant and his representative shall be afforded a reasonable period of time within which to respond. 6. This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by VARO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) 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. 1998) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the VAROs 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. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified. 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).