BVA9503250 DOCKET NO. 93-02 884 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for generalized anxiety disorder, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Siegel, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from February 1941 to October 1945. He was awarded the Purple Heart Medal. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from decisions from the Regional Office (RO). By rating action dated in July 1991, the RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to an increased rating for his service- connected psychiatric disability. In an August 1991 rating decision, the RO denied his claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. When this case was previously before the Board in July 1993, it was remanded in order to comply with due process concerns. The initial question before the Board is whether the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that a well-grounded claim is one which is plausible or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In this case, the veteran's evidentiary assertions, including his testimony at a hearing at the RO concerning the onset of his bilateral hearing loss and the severity of his service-connected psychiatric disability that are within the competence of a lay party to report, are sufficient to conclude that his claims are well grounded. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992); King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). The veteran has argued that service connection should be established for bilateral hearing loss and a higher rating is warranted for generalized anxiety disorder. He claims that his hearing loss was incurred following a 1944 in-service explosion which resulted in his wounds. During the hearing, the veteran testified that his family physician of many years was Dr. Hamburger, and that, although he was not treated for hearing loss by Dr. Hamburger, the physician had knowledge of his hearing problem. (See transcript, p. 7.) It does not appear from a review of the record that the RO has attempted to obtain the treatment records from Dr. Hamburger, referred to by the veteran. In his testimony, the veteran referenced Dr. Hamburger's location as being Worcester as well as Worthington, Massachusetts. The matter of Dr. Hamburger's address should be clarified. In Massey v. Brown, No. 93-135 (U.S. Vet.App. Dec. 6, 1994), the Court held that the record must contain evidence that correlates to the schedular criteria set forth in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities, 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993). This is interpreted as requiring that, at a minimum, the record include a Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) score. While a psychiatric examination was conducted by VA in June 1991, a GAF score was not provided. It is not clear from the examination report whether the claims folder was available for review by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The Board also notes that the veteran has reported that he has been receiving treatment for his psychiatric disorder on a regular basis at the VA facility in Northampton. The most recent records have not, however, been obtained. In addition, the Court has held that where the veteran claims that a disability is worse than when originally rated, and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current state of the condition, VA must provide a new examination. Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 480, 482 (1992), citing Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. at 632. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence requires a REMAND for action as follows: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he furnish the names, addresses, and dates of treatment of all medical providers from whom he has received treatment for his bilateral hearing loss since service and for his psychiatric disability since 1993. He should be specifically requested to furnish the name and address of Dr. Hamburger. After securing the necessary authorization forms for release of this information, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of all treatment records referred to by the veteran. 2. The veteran should then be afforded a VA examination by a specialist in ear diseases, if available, including audiometric testing, to determine the nature and extent of his bilateral hearing loss. All necessary tests should be performed. The examiner should be requested to furnish an opinion concerning the etiology of the veteran's current hearing impairment. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. 3. The veteran should then be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and severity of his service- connected psychiatric disorder. The examination report should include a detailed account of all pathology found, and the psychiatrist should describe how the symptoms of the veteran's psychiatric disability affect his social and industrial capacity. The report of the examination should include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. All necessary testing should be accomplished. The examiner should assign a numerical code under the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF) provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (Third Edition Revised) (DSM-IIIR). It is imperative that the physician include a definition of the numerical code assigned under DSM-IIIR in order to comply Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (1993). The entire claims folder and a copy of this REMAND must be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination. Following completion of the above, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims may now be granted. If not, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, and an opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. J. F. GOUGH 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 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) (1993).