Citation Nr: 18156786 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/10/18 DOCKET NO. 16-61 670 DATE: December 11, 2018 REFERRED As an initial matter, the Board notes that both the issues of entitlement to a compensable rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder and entitlement to a compensable rating for a right foot plantar wart were certified to the Board. However, in an April 2017 correspondence from the Veteran’s representative, the Veteran noted that only his claim for entitlement to a compensable rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder was formally appealed to the Board. Additionally, the Veteran requested that his claim for an increased rating for his right foot plantar wart be considered as an initial claim. Therefore, the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for the Veteran’s right foot plantar wart was raised in an April 2017 statement and is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication. REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include specific phobia, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from November 1986 to November 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the November 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). The Veteran’s original claim was characterized as entitlement to service connection for a specific phobia. However, pursuant to Clemons v. Shinseki, the Board has consolidated and expanded the issue on appeal to encompass all diagnosed psychiatric disorders. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (holding that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record.) The Veteran contends that his current acquired psychiatric disorder, including a specific phobia, warrants a compensable rating. Additionally, the Veteran contends that he also suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, at the Veteran’s October 2015 VA PTSD examination, the examiner found that the Veteran did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Although, a January 2017 VA treatment note states that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with PTSD. Therefore, it appears that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders may have increased in severity since the Veteran’s last VA examination. Therefore, the Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of any acquired psychiatric disorders diagnosed during the pendency of this appeal. Since the claims file is being remanded, it should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate those documents with the Veteran’s claims file. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorders that have been present during the period on appeal (July 2015 to the present) to include specific phobia and PTSD. The examination should include all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner should report all manifestations related to the service connected disability. If the a nonservice-connected psychiatric disorder is diagnosed, the examiner should differentiate between the symptoms attributable to the service-connected disorder as opposed to the symptoms attributable to the nonservice-connected disorder. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. (Continued on the next page)   2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mountford, Associate Counsel