Citation Nr: 1323110 Decision Date: 07/19/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 10-41 849 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Kenneth LaVan, Attorney at Law WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Peters, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active duty service from March 1981 to March 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2009 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which awarded service connection for PTSD and assigned a 50 percent evaluation for that disability, effective September 15, 2008-the date on which he filed his claim for service connection. The Veteran has appealed his assigned evaluation. During the pendency of the appeal, the Veteran's PTSD evaluation was increased to 70 percent disabling, effective September 15, 2008, in an August 2010 rating decision. The Board has recharacterized that issue on appeal in order to comport with this award of benefits. The Board notes that the Veteran was awarded a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) effective September 15, 2008, in a July 2011 rating decision. The Board therefore finds that discussion of TDIU in this opinion to be moot and will no longer address that issue. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2011; a transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. 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 Board notes that the Veteran's last VA examination for his PTSD was in May 2009, well over four years ago. The Board finds therefore that a new VA examination is necessary at this time in order to assess the current nature and severity of that condition. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App 174, 181-82 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995) (VA must provide a new examination where a veteran claims the disability is worse than when originally rated and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current severity); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1995). Ongoing private and VA treatment records should also be obtained. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b), (c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (VA medical records are in constructive possession of the agency, and must be obtained if the material could be determinative of the claim). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any relevant VA treatment records from the Miami VA Medical Center, or any other VA medical facility that may have treated the Veteran, since July 2010 and associate those documents with the claims file. 2. Ask the Veteran to identify any private treatment that he may have had for his PTSD, which is not already of record. After securing the necessary releases, attempt to obtain and associate those identified treatment records with the claims file. If any identified records cannot be obtained and further attempts would be futile, such should be noted in the claims file and the Veteran should be notified so that he can make an attempt to obtain those records on his own behalf. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his PTSD and its effect on his social and occupational functioning. The claims folder must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All tests deemed necessary should be conducted and the results reported in detail. The examiner should indicate all symptomatology associated with the Veteran's PTSD and associated psychiatric disabilities, and provide a Global Assessment of Functioning score. A rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. If the examiner opines that any of the above questions cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. 4. Following any additional indicated development, the RO/AMC should review the claims file and readjudicate the Veteran's claim for increased evaluation of his PTSD. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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). _________________________________________________ J. A. MARKEY 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).