Citation Nr: 1325695 Decision Date: 08/14/13 Archive Date: 08/16/13 DOCKET NO. 11-24 480 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Postek, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1966 to May 1968. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In that decision, the RO granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 30 percent evaluation effective from December 14, 2009. The Virtual VA electronic claims file has been reviewed. 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 finds that further development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the Veteran's claims. The Veteran was most recently afforded a VA examination in April 2010 in connection with his claim. Thereafter, the Veteran and his representative alleged that his PTSD symptoms had increased in severity, noting a supporting report from his private psychologist. See, e.g., September 2012 provider report; December 2012 informal hearing presentation (IHP). Based on review of these submissions, the Board finds that a VA examination is necessary to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran's PTSD. See VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (April 7, 1995); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994) (when claimant asserts severity of a disability has increased since most recent rating examination, additional examination is appropriate). The Board also finds that the issue of TDIU has been reasonably raised by the record. In this regard, the Veteran's representative has asserted that his PTSD symptomatology impacts his ability to work and renders him unemployable, to include consideration of the findings of his private provider. See December 2012 IHP and September 2012 report. As such, the RO/AMC should develop a claim for TDIU in accordance with Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Lastly, any pertinent and outstanding medical records should be obtained. While the record reflects that the Veteran does not receive ongoing VA mental health treatment, he has reported other treatment. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his PTSD. Then, the RO/AMC should undertake appropriate development to obtain any pertinent and outstanding treatment records. A specific request should be made for treatment records from Dr. O'Halloran and emergency room treatment, as indicated in the September 2012 provider report. 2. Then, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD. Any studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. The examiner should comment on the severity of the Veteran's PTSD and report all signs and symptoms necessary for rating the disability under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. The findings of the examiner should address the level of social and occupational impairment attributable to the Veteran's PTSD. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. 3. Then, the RO/AMC should consider whether the Veteran is entitled to TDIU under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16, based on impairment attributable to his service-connected PTSD, in accordance with Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In so doing, the RO/AMC may decide to pursue further development of the Veteran's employment history or to obtain additional medical evidence or opinion, as necessary. 4. After completing these actions, the RO/AMC should conduct any other development as may be indicated by a response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs. 5. When the development requested has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO/AMC on the basis of additional evidence. If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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). _________________________________________________ JESSICA J. WILLS 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).