Citation Nr: 1326482 Decision Date: 08/20/13 Archive Date: 08/26/13 DOCKET NO. 11-29 959 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical and Regional Office (RO) Center in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher Maynard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from November 1999 to March 2000 and from May 2006 to July 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 decision by the RO which denied entitlement to TDIU. 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 In the Informal Hearing Presentation, dated in July 2012, the representative asserted that the claims file was not provided to, or reviewed by the VA psychologist who evaluated the Veteran in June 2011 for purposes of establishing entitlement to TDIU. Thus, the examiner was unable to comment on the findings from the two prior VA psychiatric examinations conducted during the pendency of this appeal, or the numerous VA outpatient reports of record. The representative asserted that the failure to review the entire record undermines the probative value of the June 2011 examination, and requested that the Veteran be afforded another VA psychiatric examination. Where a medical examination does not contain sufficient detail to decide the claim on appeal, the Board must return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes. Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67, 73 (1996); see also, Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007) (noting that once VA provides an examination to a Veteran, VA has a duty to ensure that the examination is adequate for evaluation purposes). Under the circumstances, the Board finds that a more current examination is necessary to determine the extent and severity of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD and what, if any, affect it has on his employability. See Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294 (1995), citing Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532, 537 (1994); see also Peters v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 540, 542 (1994), [the duty to assist includes providing a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, especially where it is necessary to determine the current level of a disability.] Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be requested to provide the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment of all medical care providers, VA and non-VA, who have treated him for the disabilities on appeal. After the Veteran has signed the appropriate releases, those records should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. Appropriate efforts must be made to obtain all available VA treatment records. All attempts to procure records should be documented in the file. If the AMC/RO cannot obtain records identified by the Veteran, a notation to that effect should be inserted in the file. The Veteran is to be notified of unsuccessful efforts in this regard, in order to allow him the opportunity to obtain and submit those records for VA review. 2. The Veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the extent and severity of his PTSD. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review, and a notation to the effect that this record review took place should be included in the report. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished. The examiner should report all pertinent findings and estimate the Veteran's Global Assessment of Functional (GAF) Scale score. The examiner must also opine as to whether, without regard to the Veteran's age or the impact of any nonservice-connected disabilities, it is at least as likely as not that his service-connected PTSD renders him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The examiner should describe all findings in detail and provide a complete rationale for all opinions offered. Note: The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean merely within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of causation as it is to find against it. 3. After the requested development has been completed, the AMC should readjudicate the merits of the claim. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The Veteran need take no action unless otherwise notified. 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). _________________________________________________ WAYNE M. BRAEUER 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).