Citation Nr: 0811570 Decision Date: 04/08/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 06-29 458 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. C. Mackenzie, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1984 to January 1987 and from September 1988 to August 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2005 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The case has since been transferred to the Newark, New Jersey VARO. The veteran presented testimony at a video conference hearing chaired by the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge in October 2007. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the veteran's claims folder. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Board has reviewed the veteran's claims file and finds additional development and adjudication is necessary prior to a final Board disposition. The record reflects that the veteran was last afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the degree of severity of his PTSD in September 2005. During the veteran's October 2007 hearing, he alleged that his PTSD had increased in severity since the September 2005 VA examination. Given the reported worsening of the veteran's symptoms since his VA examination, the Board finds that a new VA examination is necessary in order to decide the veteran's claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002 and Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2007). See also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991). In addition, while this case is in remand status, the RO or the Appeals Management Center (AMC) should provide the veteran any additional required notice. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. A letter should be sent to the veteran explaining, in terms of 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103 and 5103A, the need for additional evidence regarding his claim. The letter must inform the veteran about the information and evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claim, notify him of the type of evidence that VA will seek to provide, inform him of the type of evidence that he is expected to provide, and request that he provide any and all relevant evidence currently in his possession. Pursuant to Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, supra, it is essential that: (1) this letter notify the veteran that to substantiate an increased evaluation claim he must provide, or ask VA to obtain, medical or lay evidence demonstrating a worsening or increase in severity of the disability and the effect that worsening has on his employment and daily life; (2) if the diagnostic code under which he is rated for a specific disorder contains criteria necessary for entitlement to a higher disability rating that would not be satisfied by demonstrating a noticeable worsening or increase in severity of the disability and the effect of that worsening has on his employment and daily life (such as a specific measurement or test result), the Secretary must provide at least general notice of that requirement to him; (3) he must be notified that, should an increase in disability be found, a disability rating will be determined by applying the relevant diagnostic code (specifically 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411, the provisions of which should be furnished); and (4) the notice must also provide examples of the types of medical and lay evidence that he may submit (or ask VA to obtain) that are relevant to establishing entitlement to increased compensation. 2. The veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the current degree of severity of his service-connected PTSD. Any indicated studies must be performed, and the claims folder, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination report should reflect that the claims folder was reviewed. The examiner should identify all current manifestations of the service-connected PTSD. The examiner should also provide an opinion concerning the current degree of social and industrial impairment resulting from the service-connected PSTD, to include whether it renders the veteran unemployable. In addition, the examiner should provide a GAF score with an explanation of the significance of the score assigned. The rationale for all opinions expressed must also be provided. 3. After completion of the above development, the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for PTSD should be readjudicated. If the determination remains less than fully favorable to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given an opportunity to respond. Then, if indicated, this case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal 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. 2006). _________________________________________________ TARA L. REYNOLDS Acting 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).