Citation Nr: 1304592 Decision Date: 02/08/13 Archive Date: 02/19/13 DOCKET NO. 10-38 574 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for ulcerative pancolitis. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: James G. Fausone, Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Adams, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1998 to July 2006. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia in May 2008 which, in pertinent part, denied the Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent for ulcerative pancolitis; and July 2009, which denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's left knee disability. In his substantive appeal, the Veteran requested that he be afforded a hearing before a member of the Board. In a June 2012 statement, the Veteran withdrew his request and indicated that he wanted his case be forwarded to the Board for a decision. Therefore, his request for a Board hearing is deemed to be withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.702 (2012). The Board notes that, in addition to the paper claims files, there is a Virtual VA electronic claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review of the documents in the electronic file reveals that they are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims files or are irrelevant to the issues on appeal. 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 Additional development is needed prior to the disposition of the Veteran's claims. VA has a duty to assist claimants in the development of facts pertinent to claims and VA must accomplish additional development of the evidence if the record before it is inadequate. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002). The Board regrets the additional delay that will result from this remand. Nevertheless, the Board is constrained by the fact that proper adjudication of the claims requires additional development. Increased Rating for Ulcerative Pancolitis Initially, the Board notes that the most recent VA treatment records associated with the Veteran's VA claims file pertain to VA medical treatment received by the Veteran at the St. Mary's Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) in St. Mary's, Georgia through May 2010. Accordingly, on remand updated VA treatment records should be obtained. Further, in addition to the paper claims file, there is a Virtual VA electronic claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review should be conducted of the electronic file, and if documents contained therein are deemed to be relevant to the issue on appeal and are not duplicative of those already found in the paper claims file, action should be taken to assure that those records are made available (whether by electronic means or by printing) to any medical provider who is asked to review the claims file and provide a medical opinion in conjunction with the development requested herein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1) and (2). The Board notes that the Veteran was last afforded a VA intestines examination in April 2008. However, the Veteran has made numerous emergency room visits for treatment of his ulcerative pancolitis since that time. In his September 2010 substantive appeal, the Veteran stated that he has been to the emergency room for exacerbations of his disability more than twenty times from 2006 to the present and complained of a recent flare-up during which he had lost twenty pounds. VA's duty to assist includes a duty to provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion where it is necessary to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2012); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (1995). When available evidence is too old for an adequate evaluation of the veteran's current condition, VA's duty to assist includes providing a new examination. Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281 (1993). In light of the Veteran's statement regarding a recent flare-up of his ulcerative pancolitis, the medical evidence which suggests that his disability may have worsened since the April 2008 VA examination, and the Board's request for updated VA treatment records, the prudent and thorough course of action is to afford the Veteran a VA examination to ascertain the severity of his service-connected ulcerative pancolitis. Manlincon-Issuance of SOC In July 2009, the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement with a July 2009 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for PTSD; and denying the Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee. Because the notice of disagreement placed the issues in appellate status, the matters must be remanded for the RO or the AMC to issue a Statement of the Case. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. A Statement of the Case on the issues of entitlement to service connection for PTSD and an increased rating for a left knee disability should be issued to the Veteran and his representative. The Veteran should be informed of the requirements to perfect an appeal with respect to these issues. If the Veteran perfects an appeal with respect to any of these issues, the RO or the AMC should ensure that all indicated development is completed before the case is returned to the Board. 2. The RO or the AMC should undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding, pertinent medical records pertaining to treatment of the Veteran's ulcerative pancolitis, to include all pertinent VA records for the period since May 2010 (including records from the St. Mary's CBOC). 3. Then, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination or evaluation to determine the current degree of severity of his service-connected ulcerative pancolitis. The claims folders must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. The RO or the AMC should ensure that the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes. The examiner should also provide an opinion concerning the impact of the Veteran's service-connected ulcerative pancolitis on his ability to work. The supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 4. Thereafter, the RO or the AMC should undertake any other development deemed appropriate. 5. Then, the RO or the AMC should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the appellant's satisfaction, the appellant and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time for response. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise 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). These claims 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ MARK W. GREENSTREET 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) (2012).