Citation Nr: 1324198 Decision Date: 07/30/13 Archive Date: 08/07/13 DOCKET NO. 06-25 048 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired mental disorder, identified as major depression. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: American Red Cross ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Barstow, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from March 1972 to March 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A Board decision in January 2011 denied entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for an acquired mental disorder, identified as major depression, and denied effective dates earlier than June 13, 2000, for the grant of service connection for an acquired mental disorder, identified as major depression, and the award of a total rating based on individual employability due to service-connected disability (TDIU). The Veteran thereafter appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a Memorandum Decision dated in June 2012, the Court dismisses the appeal of the earlier effective date claims and vacates the Board's denial of the initial rating claim and remanded the case for readjudication in accordance with the decision. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND Regrettably, a remand is necessary for further evidentiary development. In December 2009, the Veteran identified receiving VA treatment at the VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) in Coatesville, Pennsylvania; Lebanon, Pennsylvania; and Wilmington, Delaware. While the Veteran only specified Delaware and not what city, the Board observes that the only VAMC in Delaware is located in Wilmington. At the time of the January 2011 Board decision, treatment records from the Coatesville VAMC dated through February 2010 and from the Wilmington VAMC dated from May 2005 to July 2006 had been obtained. [Since then, additional records from the Coatesville VAMC dated through May 2011 were uploaded to the Veteran's Virtual VA electronic file.] It does not appear that any records from the Lebanon VAMC were ever obtained. Therefore, a remand is necessary so that treatment records from the Lebanon VAMC can be obtained in addition to any additional records from the Coatesville and Wilmington VAMCs. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(c) (West 2002). 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 pertinent). Since the last VA examination was in November 2011, as a remand is necessary, the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination to determine the current severity of his psychiatric disability. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. After obtaining the appropriate release of information forms where necessary, procure records of post-service psychiatric treatment that the Veteran has received. The Board is particularly interested in records of such treatment that the Veteran may have received from the Coatesville, Lebanon and Wilmington VAMCs. If any such records identified by the Veteran are not available, he should be so informed, and notations as to the unavailability of such records and as to the attempts made to obtain the documents should be made in the claims file. All such available reports should be associated with the claims folder. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the severity of the service-connected acquired mental disorder, identified as major depression. All indicated tests and studies are to be performed. The claims file and a copy of this REMAND should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in connection with the examination. The examiner should also provide an opinion concerning the current degree of social and industrial impairment resulting from the service-connected acquired mental disorder, identified as major depression. In addition, the examiner should provide a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score with an explanation of the significance of the score assigned. The examiner should assign a GAF score for the Veteran's service-connected acquired mental disorder, identified as major depression, consistent with the American Psychiatric Association : Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). The examiner should include a complete rationale for the findings and opinions expressed. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, such should be stated along with a supporting rationale. 3. Then, readjudicate the issue remaining on appeal. If the benefit remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and given an appropriate opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration. The Veteran 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). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL MARTIN 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).