Citation Nr: 0003187 Decision Date: 02/08/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 93-22 219 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Keith D. Snyder, Attorney-at- Law WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. T. Jones, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1966 to August 1969. This case came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), in pertinent part, from an RO decision which denied an increase in a 10 percent rating for PTSD with post-traumatic headaches; and, following a Board remand, the RO increased the rating for this disability to 30 percent. In a May 1998 decision, the Board granted an increased rating to 50 percent for PTSD, and also granted a separate 50 percent for post- traumatic headaches. The veteran then appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 1999 joint motion to the Court, the parties (the veteran and the VA Secretary) requested that the Board decision be vacated to the extent that it denied a higher rating than 50 percent for PTSD, and that such issue be remanded; in an August 1999 order, the Court granted the joint motion. The Board notes that the August 1999 Court order recites that the part of the Board decision that denied an increased rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD "with post-traumatic headaches" was being vacated, but it appears that such reference to the headaches was inadvertent error, inasmuch as the Board decision assigned a separate 50 percent rating for the headaches, the separate 50 rating is the maximum rating for headaches, the joint motion to the Court only indicates that the 50 percent rating for PTSD (not the 50 percent rating for headaches) was in dispute, and a February 2000 letter from the veteran's attorney indicates that only the PTSD rating remains on appeal. Thus, the Board finds the only issue remaining on appeal is entitlement to a higher rating for PTSD. In the February 2000 letter to the Board, the veteran's attorney related that in November 1998, subsequent to the May 1998 Board decision, the RO increased the PTSD rating to 70 percent, effective in June 1998. The two volumes of the veteran's claims folder, which are currently before the Board, do not refer to this, but it is possible that the RO did such rating action using a back-up folder while the case was before the Court. [The Board also notes that the 1998 Board decision denied service connection for a seizure disorder and hypertension, but those issues were dismissed by the 1999 joint motion and Court order, and such issues are no longer on appeal.] REMAND The Board finds that further development of the evidence is warranted on the issue of entitlement to a higher rating for PTSD. As noted above, the May 1998 Board decision increased the PTSD rating to 50 percent, and in a February 2000 letter the veteran's attorney relates that a subsequent RO decision increased the PTSD rating to 70 percent. The attorney requests that the case be remanded for RO review of the effective date for the reported 70 percent rating for PTSD. The RO should associate with the veteran's claim file all records in its possession concerning the claim, including records of rating actions after the Board's decision. In the judgment of the Board, given the length of time since the last VA psychiatric examination (including delay inherent in the appeal to the Court), and allegations of a worsened condition, a current VA psychiatric examination is warranted. All recent records of treatment for the condition should also be obtained. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103, 3.159 (1998); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). Accordingly the case is remanded to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain, and associate with the claims file, all the records in its possession concerning the veteran's claim for an increased rating for PTSD. (The May 1998 Board decision increased the PTSD rating to 50 percent, and records concerning a reported subsequent RO decision which increased the rating to 70 percent are not currently associated with the claims folder.) 2. The RO should ask the veteran to identify all sources of VA and non-VA psychiatric treatment and examination since 1997. The RO should then obtain copies of the related medical records. 3. Thereafter, the veteran should undergo a VA psychiatric examination to determine the severity of his PTSD. The claims folder should be provided to and reviewed by the doctor. All findings necessary for rating the disability should be reported in detail. 4. The RO should then review the claim for an increased rating for PTSD. If the claim is denied, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case, and given an opportunity to respond, before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the RO. 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 or the Court 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 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. L. W. TOBIN 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).