Citation Nr: 0810494 Decision Date: 03/28/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 04-06 282 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Elizabeth Jalley, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1978 to August 1978 and from August 1979 to July 1981. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from an April 2003 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In November 2007, the Board remanded this case for additional development, and the case has been returned for further appellate review. In February 2008, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the St. Petersburg RO. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Board notes that VA has a duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence needed to substantiate the claim, to include providing a medical examination or medical opinion if VA determines it is necessary to decide the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2007). Such development is to be considered necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but contains: (1) competent evidence of a diagnosed disability or symptoms of a disability, (2) establishes that the veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease during the pertinent presumptive period, and (3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). Service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) require that a diagnosis of a mental disorder conform to the criteria of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The veteran has stated that he was serving aboard the U.S.S. Nimitz and witnessed a deadly plane crash in which some of his friends lost their lives. Public records reflect that this accident occurred on May 26, 1981. The veteran's service personnel records reflect that he was serving aboard the Nimitz at this time. Therefore, the veteran's reported stressor is considered to have been verified. With respect to whether the veteran has a current PTSD diagnosis that satisfies the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), the Board notes that the only firm PTSD diagnosis of record was made by a nurse practitioner. There is no indication that this diagnosis was rendered in accordance with the DSM-IV criteria. These records also reflect that the veteran has received mental health treatment in recent years. While this evidence does not establish a PTSD diagnosis in accordance with the DSM-IV criteria, it is sufficient to justify remanding the veteran's claim for a VA examination and etiology opinion. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The veteran should afforded a VA PTSD examination. It is imperative that the claims file be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination, and review of the claims file should be indicated in the examination report. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished, and the findings should be reported in detail. The RO should inform the examiner of the plane crash that is the veteran's verified in-service stressor. The examiner should specifically confirm or refute whether the veteran meets the diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. If PTSD is diagnosed, the examiner should clearly identify the claimed events that are considered stressors supporting the diagnosis. 2. The appellant is advised that it is his responsibility to report for the scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2007). In the event that the appellant does not report for the scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It must also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. 3. After the above has been completed, and after any other development that is deemed appropriate, the AMC must readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the issue on appeal continues to be denied, the veteran and his representative must be provided a supplemental statement of the case. The veteran must then be given an appropriate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case must be returned to the Board for appellate review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ F. JUDGE FLOWERS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), 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) (2007).