Citation Nr: 21022150 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 16-12 517A DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for a psychiatric disability, as of December 1, 2015, to January 18, 2021, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for a psychiatric disability, prior to December 1, 2015, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran filed a claim for a higher rating for a psychiatric disability in August 2010. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the claim in a December 2010 rating decision. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement to the denial of the claim in December 2011. In a subsequent February 2016 rating decision, the AOJ granted a staged rating of 70 percent for a psychiatric disability, effective December 1, 2015, the date of the most recent psychiatric examination report. The Veteran appealed, requesting an earlier effective date for the assignment of the 70 percent rating. Because the effective date for the grant of a staged rating is an inherent part of a claim for an increased rating, the Board finds that the Veteran is still seeking an increased rating for a psychiatric disability. Therefore, the Board will adjudicate the claim as one for an increased rating for the entire period under consideration rather than an earlier effective date for the increase. A 100 percent rating has been assigned for the psychiatric disability as of January 19, 2021. Since the issuance of a statement of the case regarding the claims on appeal, VA has added additional evidence to the file. As the Board is remanding the claims, there is no need to discuss the lack of a waiver of AOJ review. That evidence should be reviewed in a supplemental statement of the case on remand. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for a psychiatric disability, as of December 1, 2015, to January 18, 2021, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for a psychiatric disability, prior to December 1, 2015, is remanded. Having reviewed the electronic claims file, the Board notes that many relevant documents are missing. For example, the file does not contain copies of pertinent and relevant records listed in the February 26, 2016, statement of the case, to include the claim for benefits, the 2010 VA psychiatric examination, a September 2010 letter from a Dr. Hudepohl, and the Veteran's December 2011 notice of disagreement. A remand is necessary to insure that all necessary documents are scanned into the claims file. Additionally, the VA treatment records currently in evidence contain notations indicating that a VA employee scanned medical records into a VA imaging system, but do not contain any copies of the scanned records. Any treatment records scanned into a VA hospital's imaging system are within VA's constructive possession and are considered potentially relevant to the issues on appeal. Remand is required to allow VA to obtain those records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. Specifically, obtain the most recent VA treatment records not included in the record of evidence and the records noted as having been scanned into the Vista imaging system by VA Medical Center personnel, as noted in the VA treatment records in evidence, dated May 8, 2017; July 13, 2014; August 30, 2013; February 28, 2013; January 31, 2013; January 21, 2013; January 4, 2013; December 26, 2012; November 19, 2012; February 3, 2011; May 11, 2009; November 14, 2008; March 7, 2008; and December 3, 2007. 2. Attempt to obtain and scan into the claims file any documents that are currently missing, to particularly include the claim for benefits, the 2010 VA psychiatric examination, a September 2010 letter from a Dr. Hudepohl, the Veteran's December 2011 notice of disagreement, and any other documents listed as evidence in the February 26, 2016, statement of the case. If necessary, obtain the paper claims file and determine if any of the missing documents were not scanned into the system. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T.M. Gillett 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.