Citation Nr: 0006563 Decision Date: 03/10/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 98-10 482A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo, New York THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently rated as 50 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for prostatitis, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Howard M. Scott, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty service from July 1966 to January 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by the Buffalo, New York, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In May 1997, the RO denied a claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD. A notice of disagreement (NOD) was received in September 1997. In May 1998, the RO increased the evaluation for PTSD to 50 percent, effective November 1996, the date of receipt of the veteran's claim, and denied an evaluation in excess of 50 percent. A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in May 1998, and a substantive appeal was received in July 1998. In May 1998, the RO also denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for prostatitis and entitlement to TDIU. The veteran's NOD to these issues was received in July 1998. An SOC was issued in November 1998. The veteran's substantive appeal on both issues was received in January 1999. REMAND As a preliminary matter the Board finds that the veteran's claims are well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a)(West 1991). When a veteran is seeking an increased rating, an assertion of an increase in severity is sufficient to render the increased rating claim well-grounded. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 629, 632 (1992). Preliminary review of the claims file reveals that the RO forwarded the claims file to the Board in February or March 1999. However, in June 1999, additional VA medical records were received at the RO. These records were in turn forwarded to the Board to be associated with the claims file. 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(b). Most of these medical records pertain to treatment for PTSD, while at least one entry also appears to pertain to recent treatment the veteran has received for prostatitis. While most of the evidence duplicates evidence already of record in the claims folder, some of the records document more recent treatment as recent as June 1999. This evidence has not been considered by the RO in connection with this appeal, and the veteran did not waive consideration of this evidence by the RO, as required under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 for the Board to consider the additional evidence in the first instance. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should review the expanded record, to include the VA medical reports received in June 1999. The RO should then accomplish any additional development of the evidence is may deem necessary. 2. After completion of the above, the RO should determine whether the veteran's claims can be granted. The RO should then furnish the veteran and his representative with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case addressing each issue which is not granted in full. After the veteran and his representative are afforded an opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board for further review. The purpose of this remand is to ensure compliance with applicable VA regulations and to afford the veteran due process of law. The veteran and his representative have the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. 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. ALAN S. PEEVY 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).