Citation Nr: 0003251 Decision Date: 02/09/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 96-43 399 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to a higher rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), initially assigned a 30 percent evaluation, effective from September 1993. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard V. Chamberlain, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from January 1968 to January 1970. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from September 1994 and later RO rating decisions that granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 30 percent evaluation for this disorder, effective from September 1993. REMAND A review of the record shows that a September 1997 RO rating decision denied an increased evaluation for PTSD (rated 30 percent) after reviewing the report of the veteran's VA psychiatric examination in August 1997. The veteran was not sent a supplemental statement of the case after this action as required by the regulatory provisions with regard to his appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (1999). Reports of the veteran's VA psychiatric examinations in April 1995 and August 1997 show GAF's (global assessment of functioning) of 34 and 40, respectively. The record does not show that he has had a psychiatric examination since August 1997. The duty to assist the veteran in the development of evidence with regard to his claim includes providing him with a thorough and contemporaneous psychiatric examination that takes into account prior medical evaluations and treatment. Weggenman v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281 (1993). In view of the above, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The veteran should be scheduled for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the severity of his PTSD. All indicated studies should be obtained and all clinical findings reported in detail. The examiner should provide a current GAF. If there are mental disorders in addition to the PTSD, these should be identified and the examiner should provide an opinion as to the GAF that would be assigned if the PTSD was the only mental disorder present. If this is not possible, the examiner should attempt to describe the severity of the PTSD alone, without consideration of the other psychological factors affecting the veteran's social and industrial functioning. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination, and the examiner should acknowledge such review in the report. 2. After the above development, the RO should review the claim for a higher rating for PTSD, initially assigned a 30 percent evaluation, effective from September 1993. If action remains adverse to the veteran, an appropriate supplemental statement of the case should be sent to him. The veteran should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of the case before the file is returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on these matters. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. 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 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. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs 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. J. E. Day 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).