Citation Nr: 1032005 Decision Date: 08/25/10 Archive Date: 09/01/10 DOCKET NO. 05-39 602 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Kathy A. Lieberman, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. D. Anderson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1965 to September 1967. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) following a March 2010 Joint Motion for Remand from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacating and remanding a May 2009 Board decision that denied the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. Although the Veteran filed a claim for PTSD, the record reasonably raises a claim for other psychiatric disorders, including depression. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). As the Joint Motion narrowly addressed only the issue of PTSD, a claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD is referred to the RO for consideration. 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 Pursuant to a January 2008 remand, the RO requested records from Dr. Rojas. Although he submitted a statement regarding the Veteran's care in June 2009, copies of his treatment records should be associated with the claims file. Moreover, records from Dr. Coca and from Mennonite Hospital should be requested. The Veteran has also claimed that he received treatment at three VA hospitals in New York - Kingsbridge, Bronx, and Brooklyn. As the James J. Peters VA Medical Center (formerly Bronx VAMC) is located on Kingsbridge Road, the Board assumes that these are one in the same facility, although they were identified as separate facilities. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain all of the Veteran's treatment records from those facilities. Next, it appears that the Veteran is receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). It is unclear from the record whether these benefits are disability benefits or pension benefits based on his age. A review of the claims file reveals no records obtained from the SSA, and no clear determination as to the availability of any records which may have been in the possession of the SSA. Thus, the Board must obtain all of the records pertaining to the SSA decision as such records may be relevant to this claim for VA benefits. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 188 (2002) (possibility that SSA records could contain relevant evidence cannot be foreclosed absent a review of those records). If these records are unavailable, a formal finding of such should be placed of record. Additionally, the Veteran has argued that the June 2005 VA examiner incorrectly applied the DSM-IV criteria in determining he did not suffer from PTSD and has submitted a June 2009 letter from his treating psychiatrist diagnosing him with PTSD. Therefore, the record is not clear as to the current psychiatric diagnoses. For this reason, the Board finds that on remand, the Veteran should be scheduled for another psychiatric examination. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain clinical records from the Bronx (James J. Peters) and Brooklyn VA Medical Centers for the period from 1980 to the present. Efforts to obtain these records should be documented, and all records and responses received should be associated with the claims folder. 2. Obtain SSA records, including all medical records which formed the basis of any decision rendered. Efforts to obtain these records should be documented, and all records and responses received should be associated with the claims folder. 3. With the Veteran's assistance, obtain any relevant private records not yet obtained, in furtherance of the claim, including records from Dr. Rojas, Dr. Coca, and Mennonite Hospital. Dr. Rojas should be asked specifically to provide copies of all treatment records since 2004. Associate with the claims file copies of all requests made, and all records and responses received. Conduct any further indicated development. 4. After the requested development is complete, schedule the Veteran for an examination to assess the nature and extent of his PTSD. The claims file should be provided to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination. All necessary tests and studies should be performed. After a review of the claims file and an examination of the Veteran, the examiner is asked to address the following: * whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., to at least a 50-50 degree of probability) that the Veteran's PTSD had onset in service or was caused or aggravated by active service. Note: The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean merely within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of causation as it is to find against it. In this regard, if the examiner concludes that there is insufficient information to provide an etiologic opinion without result to mere speculation, the examiner should state whether the inability to provide an opinion was due to a need for further information (with said needed information identified) or because the limits of medical knowledge had been exhausted regarding the etiology of the disorder. 5. When the development requested has been completed, and the RO has ensured compliance with the requested action, this case should again be reviewed by the RO on the basis of the additional evidence. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, he and his attorney should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded the appropriate opportunity to respond thereto. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ L. HOWELL 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) (2009).