BVA9508397 DOCKET NO. 93-17 983 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. T. Jones, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from April 1958 to March 1967 and from May 1971 to May 1974. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 1992 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon, which denied a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. The veteran has a pending claim for increased rating for his service-connected disabilities; these issues are referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The veteran's claim for a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is well grounded, meaning not inherently implausible, and the file indicates there is a further VA duty to assist him in developing the facts pertinent to that claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1994). Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). The veteran's service-connected disabilities are a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (50 percent), postoperative residuals of a left knee disorder (30 percent), neurodermatitis (10 percent), residuals of a right ankle fracture (10 percent), residuals of a stress fracture of the right tibial plateau (zero percent), and residuals of a fracture coccyx (zero percent). A schedular 100 percent rating for the veteran's left knee disorder was assigned under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5055, for one year following surgery (a total knee replacement) at a VAMC in April 1993; the total rating was in effect through May 1994. A VA examination for rating purposes has not been performed since March 1993, and a current examination is warranted. See Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377 (1994). After a July 1993 supplemental statement of the case was issued, reports of June and November 1993 VA medical center (VAMC) admissions and additional VA outpatient treatment records have been received at the Board. This evidence is pertinent to the veteran's claim, and was not reviewed by the RO or covered in a supplemental statement of the case, as required by 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1994). In light of all of the above, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should ask the veteran to identify (names, addresses, dates) all VA and non-VA medical providers (doctors, clinics, etc.) which have provided examination or treatment for any service- connected disabilities. The RO should then directly contact the sources and obtain copies of the records, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The RO should insure that all records from the VAMC in Portland, not already associated with the claims folder, are obtained. 2. After all records are associated with the claims folder, the veteran should be scheduled for VA compensation examinations, including a special orthopedic examination, to determine the severity of his disabilities. All indicated studies should be performed and all clinical findings reported in detail. The veteran should also be scheduled for a comprehensive VA psychiatric examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. This study must be conducted in accordance with the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Examinations. All indicated tests, including appropriate psychological studies with applicable subscales, must be conducted. The claims folder and all current treatment records must be made available to the examiner for review before the examination so a proper assessment of the current PTSD can be made. The examiner should give his opinion of the current degree of severity. In this regard, the terms, mild, definite, considerable, severe and total are the preferred descriptive adjectives. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. If the claim is denied, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case, and they should be given an opportunity to respond. EUGENE A. O'NEILL 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 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).