Citation Nr: 23047656 Decision Date: 08/29/23 Archive Date: 08/29/23 DOCKET NO. 19-09 600 DATE: August 29, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left hip arthritis status post surgery (excluding period of temporary total rating for convalescence) is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent from July 16, 2013 and a rating in excess of 70 percent from August 30, 2018 for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps June 2003 to June 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) which granted service connection for PTSD with an evaluation of 50 percent effective June 16, 2013; and continued the evaluation of 10 percent for service-connected left hip arthritis. By rating decision of February 2019, the AOJ increased the evaluation for PTSD from 50 to 70 percent effective August 30, 2018. By rating decision of August 2019, the Veteran was awarded a temporary convalescent rating of 100 percent for left hip arthritis from February 26, 2019 to July 1, 2019. In June 2021, the Veteran testified at a Virtual Hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. In May 2023, the Board remanded the matters of increased rating for PTSD and left hip arthritis to afford reexaminations. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left hip arthritis status post surgery is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent from July 16, 2013 and a rating in excess of 70 percent from August 30, 2018 for PTSD is remanded. Based on the Veteran's assertion of worsening symptoms and given that his last VA examinations were in September 2018 for PTSD and hip disability, the Board determined that reexaminations were needed. See May 2023 Board remand. The record shows that VA contract exams were scheduled for May 11, 2023 for left hip arthritis and June 10, 2023 for PTSD but were cancelled as the Veteran was a "no show". However, review of the record does not show whether the Veteran was properly notified of those examinations scheduled in May 2023 and June 2023. Specifically, the record does not contain any notification letters sent or a record of contact history for an appointment confirmation. Although the record shows an appointment notification was sent on June 16, 2023, for a PTSD exam scheduled for June 30, 2023, no further efforts were made to reschedule the Veteran for the left hip arthritis since the cancelled exam of May 11, 2023. Moreover, the Veteran should be provided notice with adequate time to make transportation arrangements, if needed. Generally, the record should include an appointment confirmation notification with provider information, notifying the veteran of the date, time, and location of the examination. Additionally, the record should include a veteran contact history documenting veteran availability, appointment notification, appointment reminders and method of contact such as telephonic, text, courier, or email. Here, since there is some evidence of good cause for the Veteran's inability to report for the scheduled VA examinations (that he was not properly notified), the Board finds the Veteran should be given an opportunity for another examination. With that said, however, the Board notes that the Veteran should be reminded that individuals for whom reexaminations have been authorized and scheduled are required to report for such reexaminations. 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a). Absent a showing of good cause, a veteran's failure to participate or cooperate during a VA examination is akin to a failure to report for a VA examination. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655; Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171, 178 (2005). Lastly, the duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a claimant wishes help in developing his claim, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining putative evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature, extent and severity of his service-connected left hip disability. The electronic claims file should be accessible to the examiner in connection with the examination. The examiner should consider all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the disability under the rating criteria as indicated by the relevant Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). In so doing, the examiner should test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner should also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran's statements. The examiner should determine whether the Veteran experiences flare-ups and to the extent possible estimate any additional functional loss caused by the Veteran's flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature, extent and severity of his PTSD. All required tests should be performed. The electronic claims file should be accessible to the examiner in connection with the examination. The examiner must consider all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the disability under the rating criteria as indicated by the relevant Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Upon completion of the requested development and any additional development deemed appropriate, adjudicate the claims on appeal. If the determination remains unfavorable, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case which addresses all relevant evidence. The Veteran and his representative should be afforded the applicable time period in which to respond. Then, return the case to the Board. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A., 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.