Citation Nr: 20002863 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/13/20 DOCKET NO. 17-36 096 esDATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent disabling for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from June 1987 to June 1990 and from January 1991 to March 1991. As a preliminary matter, the Board observes that the regional office issued a decision in January 2017 that increased the assigned evaluation for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD with depressive disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) from 50 percent disabling to 70 percent disabling, effective June 2, 2016. The Veteran continues his appeal for a higher evaluation. Accordingly, a remand is necessary in this case to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the appellant’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018). Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent disabling for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. The Veteran contends that the current severity of his service-connected PTSD with depressive disorder, NOS warrants a higher evaluation. In his February 2017 notice of disagreement, the Veteran indicated that his current symptoms impair his ability to “go out in public,” attend social activities, or function in crowds. When leaving the house, his mind is often clouded with thoughts of escape plans and preparation for hand to hand combat. Review of the record indicates that the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination in January 2017. The most recent VA and/or private treatment records associated with the claims file were also dated January 2017. Accordingly, a remand is required to obtain medical records which reflect ongoing treatment for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD with depressive disorder, NOS. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (c) (2014); 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). Moreover, the Board recognizes that the Veteran is generally competent to report on her current symptoms and their worsening. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 629 (1992). Where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since the last examination, a veteran is entitled to a new VA examination. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 402-03 (1997). Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA and private treatment records and associated them with the claims file. 2. Upon receipt and review (and if warranted), schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected PTSD with depressive disorder, NOS. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand should be made available to the examiner for review, and such review should be noted in the examination report. All necessary tests and studies should be conducted. The examiner must also discuss the functional effects of the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD with depressive disorder, NOS, and any related residual conditions. As a part of the examination and/or opinion, the examiner must consider all medical evidence to include the Veteran’s lay statements. Have the examining physician/specialist provide information to demonstrate that they are qualified to offer the above requested opinion (such as a curriculum vitae or similar demonstrable documentation). This information is to be associated with the Veteran’s claims file. See Francway v. Wilkie, No. 2018-2136, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30633 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2019). Any opinion offered must be accompanied by a complete rationale, to include consideration of all medical evidence and lay statements. If any requested opinion cannot be offered without resorting to speculation, the examiner should indicate such in the examination report and explain why a non-speculative opinion cannot be offered. The examiner should also identify what, if any, additional information or evidence would allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. Thereafter, re-adjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and an adequate opportunity to respond before returning the matter to the Board for further adjudication, if otherwise in order. The appellant 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 all claims remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Whitaker, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.