Citation Nr: 1112028 Decision Date: 03/25/11 Archive Date: 04/06/11 DOCKET NO. 09-15 023 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant, appellant's spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Stephen Eckerman, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from January 1968 to December 1969. The Veteran's appeal as to the issue listed above arose from a June 2008 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee, which denied the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for service-connected PTSD, currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling In August 2010, the Veteran was afforded a hearing before F. Judge Flowers, who is the Veterans Law Judge rendering the determination in this claim and was designated by the Chairman of the Board to conduct that hearing, pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(b) (West 2002). The issues of entitlement to special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ, and entitlement to service connection for heart disease, have been raised by the Veteran, but have not yet been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them, and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. 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 duty to conduct a contemporaneous examination is triggered when the evidence indicates there has been a material change in disability or that the current rating may be incorrect. See Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95, 60 Fed. Reg. 43186 (1995) (a new examination is appropriate when there is an assertion of an increase in severity since the last examination). In this case, a review of the Veteran's transcript from his hearing, held in August 2010, shows that he testified that his PTSD symptoms have worsened since his last VA examination (in February 2008). Accordingly, on Remand, the Veteran should be afforded another examination of his PTSD. The appellant is hereby notified that it is the appellant's responsibility to report for the examination, and to cooperate in the development of the case, and that the consequences of failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158 and 3.655 (2010). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all VA and private health care providers who have treated him for psychiatric symptoms after October 2009 (i.e., after the most recent VA reports of record), in order to determine if relevant records exist that are not currently associated with the claims files. After securing any necessary releases, the RO should attempt to obtain these records. 2. The Veteran should be scheduled for a VA examination with an appropriate specialist in order to determine the nature and severity of his PTSD. The claims files must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination, and the examination report should reflect that such a review was made. All pertinent symptomatology and findings should be reported in detail. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies should be accomplished. The Veteran's complaints should be recorded in full. As part of the evaluation, the examiner is requested to assign a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score. 3. Readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case that contains notice of all relevant actions taken, including a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered pertinent to the issue. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response by the Veteran and his representative. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. 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. 2010). _________________________________________________ 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) (2010).