Citation Nr: 21021849 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 16-00 908 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for coronary artery disease (CAD) is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The most recent VA examinations for CAD and PTSD were completed in July 2013. This case was most recently before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in August 2019, where the Board directed the RO to schedule VA examinations for CAD and PTSD. In January 2020, VA received notice that the Veteran requested cancellation of the VA examination due to being unable to attend the exam at the specified mileage range. In June 2020, the RO issued a Supplemental SOC (SSOC) denying his claim for an increased rating for CAD and PTSD based on his failure to appear for the exam. In July 2020, the Veteran submitted a lay statement addressing his failure to appear for the scheduled VA examination. He provided the name of a person who he was in communication with regarding getting transportation to the examination site. The Veteran stated he is handicapped and without transportation and requested someone to pick him up at his home. He stated this request was denied, although it had been granted on previous occasions. See July 2020 Correspondence. In Young v. Wilkie, No. 18-6194, 2020 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 593 (Ct. Vet. App. Apr 3, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) guided that the determination of whether a Veteran has shown good cause to not attend his/her scheduled VA examination calls for a highly factual analysis. See id. at *2 (citing Engelke v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 396, 399 (1997)). The Court stressed that the Veteran’s litigation history should be examined, to include his/her prior record of attendance of VA examinations and evidence that could reasonably be construed as a statement that (s)he refused rather than was unable to attend the missed examination. See id. at *3-4. Here, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran has been diligent in attending his prior scheduled VA examinations, and no evidence of record could reasonably be construed as indicating the Veteran’s refusal to attend the CAD and PTSD VA examinations. The Board finds that the Veteran has shown good cause for failure to report for his VA examination for CAD and PTSD. Accordingly, the examinations should be rescheduled. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to assess the current severity of the Veteran’s CAD. The claims folder must be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished, as needed. 2. Schedule a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to assess the current severity of the Veteran’s PTSD. The claims folder must be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished, as needed. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation with regard to any aspect of the examination, the clinician is requested to provide an explanation as to why this is so and to clarify what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be rendered. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, a Supplemental Statement of the Case should be furnished to the Veteran and his representative, and he should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. If the Veteran fails to report for this examination, then a copy of the examination notice letter must be associated with the appellant’s VBMS and virtual VA/legacy files. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for additional development must be handled in an expeditious manner See 38U.S.C. §§5109B, 7112. Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Nelson, Associate 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.