Citation Nr: 1339933 Decision Date: 12/04/13 Archive Date: 12/18/13 DOCKET NO. 12-31 666 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with depression. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: California Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Peters, Associate Counsel REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from October 1968 to August 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which awarded service connection for PTSD with depression and assigned a 30 percent evaluation, effective August 18, 2009. The Veteran's last VA examination of his psychiatric disability was in December 2009. In September 2012, the Veteran stated that his disability was worse. In light of the length of time since the Veteran's last examination and his September 2012 statement of worsening, the Board finds that a remand is necessary at this time in order to afford him another VA examination that more accurately reflects the current severity of his disability. 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). The Board additionally notes that the San Jose Vet Center sent an October 2010 letter in which it appears that the Veteran was continuing to obtain treatment for his PTSD from that facility. The Board notes that records from June to December 2009 have been obtained from that facility. Accordingly, on remand, ongoing Vet Center treatment records should be obtained, as well as any other identified private or VA treatment records. 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); Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466 (1998) (Vet Centers are considered VA facilities for the purposes of the duty to assist in obtaining records). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any VA or private treatment that he may have had for his PTSD with depression, 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. 2. Obtain any treatment records from the San Jose Vet Center, or any other Vet Center that may have treated the Veteran, since December 2009 and associate those documents with the claims file. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his PTSD with depression and its effect on his social and occupational functioning. The claims folder must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. 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 with depression, and provide a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score. The meaning of the GAF score relative to the Veteran's ability to work should be explained. The examiner should specifically discuss whether the Veteran's psychiatric disability precludes substantially gainful employment. All opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If the examiner determines that he/she cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain the inability to provide an opinion, identifying precisely what facts could not be determined. In particular, he/she should comment on whether an opinion could not be provided because the limits of medical knowledge have been exhausted or whether additional testing or information could be obtained that would lead to a conclusive opinion. Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 389 (2010). (The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should ensure that any additional evidentiary development suggested by the examiner be undertaken so that a definite opinion can be obtained.) 4. Following any additional indicated development, the AOJ should review the claims file and readjudicate the Veteran's claim for a higher evaluation. 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 before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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. 2013). ________________________________ MARK F. HALSEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board 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) (2013).