BVA9508169 DOCKET NO. 93-18 600 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for nonservice-connected pension purposes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1963 to October 1968. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of June 1992 from the Huntington, West Virginia, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for nonservice-connected pension purposes. REMAND In his January 1992 application, the veteran claimed that the disabilities causing unemployability included back problems, arthritis of the right wrist and disability of the lower left extremity. In his September 1992 substantive appeal, the veteran stated that his left foot and ankle disabilities were not properly considered by the RO. The veteran also stated that he had a nervous condition which was not evaluated on VA examination or assessed by the RO in its denial of pension benefits. The evidence shows that he was given VA examinations in March 1993 for the claimed left foot and ankle disabilities and the claimed nervous condition. The veteran's representative argues that the veteran related bad memories of his war experiences during the examination and, in essence, he raised a claim for post-traumatic stress disorder. The representative argues that this disorder bears directly and substantially upon the issue of entitlement to nonservice- connected pension benefits and must be adjudicated. The representative indicated that he would clarify whether the veteran was claiming service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, but this has not been accomplished. The representative also raises additional issues of service connection in the April 1994 written presentation and requests that these be adjudicated by the RO prior to the issue of nonservice-connected pension benefits. Additional clarification regarding which benefits the veteran is claiming as well as all the disabilities he argues supports his claim for nonservice-connected pension benefits is necessary. In Roberts v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 387, 390 (1992), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) held that each disability in a pension case must be assigned a percentage rating, that the RO should discuss the diagnostic codes used in evaluating a claim, that a rating decision may not be based on an examination that was conducted before all relevant evidence was gathered, and that the effect of pain on employability must be addressed. In Brown v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 444, 446-47 (1992), the Court held that a pension claim must be considered under both the average person standard and the unemployability standard. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1502(a) (West 1991); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.17 (1994). This has not been accomplished for all the claimed disabilities in the present case. Consequently, additional development is necessary in order to comply with the applicable laws and regulations as set forth in Roberts and Brown. During the March 1993 VA examination, the veteran reported that he was receiving Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits as a result of his back disability. A copy of the decision awarding those benefits has not been requested. It is also unclear whether all the records associated with that determination have been obtained. The representative argues that these records are pertinent to the issue on appeal and the VA is under a duty to obtain copies of the SSA decision awarding disability benefits and the medical evidence used in that determination. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board is of the opinion that additional assistance is required. The case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should request the veteran to submit a written statement clarifying all the disabilities which he claims have caused unemployability. The veteran should also identify the names and addresses of any medical care providers, VA or otherwise, who have treated him for any of the claimed disabilities, and any treatment received since March 1993. After obtaining any needed authorization from the veteran, the RO should request copies of all these records from the named source(s). 2. The RO should obtain a copy of the veteran's SSA disability determination and the medical records upon which that decision was based. Any evidence obtained should be made part of the claims folder. 3. The veteran should be afforded general medical, psychiatric, and neurologic examinations in order to determine the severity and manifestations of any current disabilities. The scope of the examinations should be broad enough to cover all diseases, injuries, and residual conditions which are suggested by the veteran's complaints, symptoms or findings at the time of examinations. The examinations should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The disabilities should be evaluated in relation to their history, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity, specifically employability, imposed by any disabling conditions. The examiners must be provided the claims folder for review. The psychiatric diagnostic formulation should include a numerical and narrative assessment of the veteran's level of functioning as measured by the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale code. 4. The RO should then adjudicate the issues that are on appeal at that time. The rating decision should list all of the veteran's disabilities and the percentage evaluation assigned each disability. If a permanent and total rating for pension purposes is denied under both the average person and the unemployability standards, the rating should reflect consideration of the applicability of 38 C.F.R.§ 3.321(b)(2). If a permanent and total rating for pension purposes remains denied, the supplemental statement of the case should cite the appropriate diagnostic codes and provide a discussion of their applicability to the veteran's disabilities. This document should also provide a discussion of the two standards (average person and unemployability) by which a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes may be assigned, as well as the applicability of 38 C.F.R.§ 3.321(b)(2). The veteran and his representative should then be afforded the applicable time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and ensure that the veteran is afforded all due process of law. The Board intimates no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate conclusion warranted in this case. No action by the veteran is required until he is contacted by the RO. E. M. KRENZER 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 deter- mination. 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) (1994).