Citation Nr: 18100766 Decision Date: 04/20/18 Archive Date: 04/20/18 DOCKET NO. 11-23 930A DATE: April 20, 2018 ISSUES DECIDED: 0 ISSUES REMANDED: 5 REMANDED ISSUES The issues of entitlement to increased ratings for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity and left upper extremity from September 29, 2014, entitlement to increased ratings for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity and right lower extremity, and entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are remanded for additional development. The Veteran served on active duty from September 1965 to September 1969. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2010 and April 2012 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2015, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. These matters were previously before the Board in April 2016, when they were remanded for additional development. With regard to the Veteran’s increased rating claims for right and left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, the April 26, 2016 Board decision adjudicated the claims for the period prior to September 29, 2014. Accordingly, the current appeals regarding those claims are limited to the period beginning September 29, 2014. The Board notes that the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) at the RO concerning the issue of entitlement to an effective date prior to April 10, 2017 for the grant of a TDIU, as shown in the electronic claims file (VBMS). Such appeal is contained in the VACOLS appeals tracking system as an active appeal at the RO. While the Board is cognizant of the Court’s decision in Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999), in this case, unlike in Manlincon, the RO has fully acknowledged the NOD and is currently in the process of adjudicating the appeal. Action by the Board at this time may serve to actually delay the RO’s action on the appeal. As such, no action will be taken by the Board at this time, and that issue will be the subject of a later Board decision, if ultimately necessary. The evidence indicates there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. VA treatment records from October 5, 2017 and June 5, 2017 indicate that the Veteran was to return for follow up appointments in April 2018 and February 2018 or March 2018. VA treatment records subsequent to October 5, 2017 have not been associated with the claims file. Additionally, the September 2010 VA PTSD examination report indicates that the Veteran received treatment at the Vet Center in Bloomfield, New Jersey. To date, the Veteran’s Vet Center treatment records have not been obtained. Such records should be requested on remand. The record also indicates that there are outstanding private treatment records. A June 5, 2017 VA treatment record indicates that the Veteran was followed by a private psychiatrist, Dr. Prince, on a weekly basis and a private podiatrist, Dr. Delgado, on a biweekly basis. To date, complete records from these providers have not been associated with the claims file. On remand, reasonable efforts should be made to obtain the aforementioned records. With regard to the Veteran’s PTSD claim, his most recent VA examination was in May 2015. The examiner indicated that the Veteran’s PTSD caused occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. In a February 2017 correspondence, the Veteran’s private psychiatrist, Dr. Prince, opined that the Veteran’s PTSD resulted in total occupational and social impairment. However, Dr. Prince did not explain the basis for his opinion and some information necessary to address the rating criteria was not provided. Accordingly, another VA PTSD examination is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him his disabilities on appeal, to include any Vet Center treatment records as well as treatment records from Dr. Prince and Dr. Delgado. After securing any necessary releases, the AOJ should request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records dated since October 5, 2017. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. After records development is completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA PTSD examination to determine the current severity of his service connected PTSD. The claims file should be reviewed by the examiner. All necessary tests should be performed and the results reported. All symptomatology associated with the PTSD should be reported. 3. After completing the above actions and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period should be allowed for response. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Anderson, Counsel