Citation Nr: 20052929 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 14-27 875 DATE: August 10, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a mood disorder, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran failed to appear for an October 2019 VA examination without good cause. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and a mood disorder, is denied on the basis of failure to report for a VA medical examination in conjunction with a reopened claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed. 38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in active duty from May 1968 to April 1970. In an April 2018 decision, the Board reopened a previously denied claim for service connection for PTSD, and remanded the current claim on appeal to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction to: (1) Ask the Veteran to identity and provide releases to any outstanding private treatment records; (2) Associate with the claims file outstanding VA treatment records since January 2017; (3) Contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) to get records; (4) schedule the Veteran for a VA examination; and (5) Issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) if any benefit was denied by the AOJ. The Veteran was asked to provide releases to any outstanding private treatment records in a February 2019 letter. Additional VA treatment records were added to the file. The AOJ contacted SSA to get records in a September 2019 correspondence. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in October 2019. Finally, a March 2020 SSOC was issued. In consideration of the appeal, the Board is satisfied there was substantial compliance with the remand directives as it relates to the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to PTSD and a mood disorder, and will proceed with review. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) Opt-in Election form that was received by VA on December 12, 2018. However, the appeal had already been activated at the Board and is therefore no longer eligible for RAMP. Accordingly, the Board will undertake appellate review of the case. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD The Veteran contends that he feared for his life while serving in Vietnam. However, the Board cannot address the merits of the appeal because the Veteran did not appear for a VA examination. For background purposes, VA had denied the claim for service connection for PTSD in a February 2008 rating decision that became final. In an April 2018 Board decision, it reopened the claim and remanded it to provide the Veteran with a VA examination. In October 2019, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) scheduled a VA examination for October 2019 in connection with the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The record shows the Veteran failed to appear for the examination. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a), when entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination or reexamination, action shall be taken in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) or (c) as appropriate. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) provides, when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with a claim for increase or a reopened claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, the claim shall be denied. With respect to the Veteran's failure to report for examination, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the burden is upon VA to demonstrate that notice was sent to the claimant's last address of record and that the claimant lacked adequate reason or good cause for failing to report for a scheduled examination. Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262, 265 (1993). Here, there is no evidence in the record that mail has been returned from the Veteran’s current address located on Fillmore St. As of this date, VA has not received any mail addressed to the Veteran at such address that has been returned as undeliverable. Thus, the Board finds that no further development needs to be taken to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. The duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a), (b). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has provided an explanation to show good cause for the failure to report for the VA examination or why he failed to report for the examination. Furthermore, the March 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) provided the Veteran with the provisions for failure to report for a VA examination, including that when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with a reopened claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, the claim shall be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. VA specifically informed the Veteran that he had failed to report for the scheduled examination. Thus, the Veteran was put on notice that he had failed to report for a VA examination and could establish good cause for his failure to report for the examination. VA told him that, by regulation, the claim shall be denied. However, no reply from the Veteran was received after the March 2020 supplemental statement of the case. VA has attempted to schedule this examination; however, the Veteran has not responded. The AOJ attempted to contact the Veteran to discuss the missed examination, which was scheduled for October 2019, as noted in the November 12, 2019, Report of General Information (VA Form 27-0820). The Board also notes the Veteran appeared for other VA examinations in September 2011, March 2005, and March 1990, but failed to appear for this examination and has not expressed a willingness to appear for such examination. As was previously discussed, there is no evidence that the Veteran did not receive notice of this examination prior to his failure to appear in October 2019. Further, in the appellate brief, the Veteran’s representative offered no explanation of good cause for the Veteran to fail to appear for the VA examination. Hence, no further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist. As the Veteran failed to report for an examination scheduled for his claim for service connection, and he has not shown good cause for failing to appear, denial of the claim based on the application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) is warranted. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Patton 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.