Citation Nr: 0811588 Decision Date: 04/08/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 02-14 296 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 70 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America WITNESSES AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Graham, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to July 1969. The instant appeal arose from a May 2002 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in Detroit, Michigan, which granted a claim for service connection for PTSD and assigned an initial rating of 30 percent. During the pendency of the appeal, a higher initial rating, to 70 percent, was granted in an October 2005 rating decision. 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 In a November 2006 decision, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied an initial rating above 70 percent for PTSD. The veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In December 2007, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for remand. The purpose of the joint motion was to ensure compliance with the Board's January 2005 remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (remand by the Board confers on an appellant the right to VA compliance with the terms of the remand order and imposes on the Secretary a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms). Specifically, in the joint motion the parties agreed that a new and more thorough psychiatric examination report was warranted which (1) clarifies the examiner's medical judgment as to the extent of the appellant's occupational and social impairment; (2) explains the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score assigned; and (3) reconciles, if possible the conflicting GAF scores from an August 2001 private medical report and a March 2002 VA medical examination. In addition, the veteran must be provided with notice in accordance with Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). In that case, the Court held that, upon receipt of an application for a service-connection claim, 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) require VA to review the information and the evidence presented with the claim and to provide the claimant with notice of what information and evidence not previously provided, if any, will assist in substantiating, or is necessary to substantiate, each of the five elements of the claim, including notice of what is required to establish service connection and that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded. Here, the veteran is challenging the initial evaluation assigned following the grant of service connection for PTSD. Accordingly, Dingess notice is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the veteran with notice concerning regulations governing the assignment of effective dates and disability evaluations. Also advise the veteran that he may submit evidence showing the effects of the worsening or increase in severity upon his employment and daily life. Additionally, give the veteran notice of the criteria listed in Diagnostic Code 9411, concerning PTSD. 2. Schedule the veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the severity of his PTSD. The examiner should review the claims file in connection with the examination. A GAF score should be assigned. In particular, the examiner is requested to: (a) Explain the meaning of the GAF score he or she assigns; and (b) Provide a statement that clarifies his or her medical judgment as to the extent of the veteran's occupational and social impairment due exclusively to PTSD (to the exclusion of other conditions); and (c) Reconcile, if possible, the conflicting GAF scores noted in the August 2001 report from G.G., MSW, and the March 2002 VA examination report. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions expressed. 3. Thereafter, take adjudicatory action on the veteran's claim. If the benefit is not granted in full, provide a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) to the veteran and his representative. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. 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 or by the Court 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). _________________________________________________ K. Osborne Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the Court. 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).