Citation Nr: 1320826 Decision Date: 06/27/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 10-14 926 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Wade R. Bosley, Attorney at law WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Carole Kammel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from September 1964 to September 1966. He was awarded the Combat Infantryman's Badge (CIB). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2009 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana. By that rating action, the RO granted service connection for PTSD; an initial 30 percent disability rating was assigned effective from September 14, 2006. In August 2010, the Veteran and his spouse testified before the undersigned at a hearing conducted at the above-cited RO. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the claims files. In a February 2011 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation, in excess of 30 percent, for PTSD. The Veteran perfected an appeal of the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2011 Order, the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) and vacated the Board's February 2011 decision, remanding the case to the Board for additional development consistent with the JMR. In December 2011, the Board remanded the claim for an additional VA examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran's PTSD. An examination was conducted in January 2012. A copy of the examination report has been associated with the claims file. The matter has returned to the Board for further appellate 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 on his part. REMAND Although the issue on appeal has been previously remanded, the Board finds that further development is required for an adequate determination. A remand by the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In its December 2011 remand the Board requested that the Veteran be scheduled for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the current degree of severity of his PTSD. It was noted that the Veteran stated at his August 2010 hearing that he thought of suicide once a month, but that he subsequently noted that he had "bad" days eight to ten days a month and that suicide "maybe pop[s] into [his] mind" during those days. The examiner was requested to address the Veteran's report of suicidal ideations, to include the extent and frequency of any such symptoms related to his PTSD, and to include a review of the impact of PTSD upon his social and industrial activities including employability. Although the Veteran was provided a VA examination in January 2012, the examiner did not address these specific matters. Therefore, additional development is required prior to appellate review. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a clarifying addendum opinion from the January 2012 VA examiner, or if unavailable from an appropriate VA medical specialist. The opinion must address the Veteran's report of suicidal ideations, to include the extent and frequency of any such symptoms related to his PTSD, and include a review of the impact of PTSD upon his social and industrial activities including employability. All indicated examinations, tests, and studies deemed necessary for an adequate opinion are to be performed. 2. After completion of the above and any additional development deemed necessary, the issue on appeal should be reviewed with appropriate consideration of all the evidence of record. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his attorney should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and should be afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review. 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. 2012). ____________________________________________ T. L. DOUGLAS 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) (2012).