05-15 977

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedJuly 29, 2016
Docket05-15 977
StatusUnpublished

This text of 05-15 977 (05-15 977) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
05-15 977, (bva 2016).

Opinion

http://www.va.gov/vetapp16/Files4/1630486.txt
Citation Nr: 1630486	
Decision Date: 07/29/16    Archive Date: 08/04/16

DOCKET NO.  05-15 977	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for service-connected acne.  

2.  Entitlement to an increased initial disability rating for service-connected residuals of a right ankle injury, rated as noncompensable prior to November 3, 2010, and rated as 10 percent disabling thereafter.

3.  Entitlement to an increased initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

4.  Entitlement to an effective date prior to November 3, 2010 for the assignment of a 10 percent evaluation for service-connected residuals of a right ankle injury.

5.  Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities.  



REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Ronald Skystus, Attorney


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Steve Ginski, Associate Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from June 1966 to May 1968, and in the U.S. Air Force from April 1971 to April 1989.  The Veteran is in receipt of, among other medals, a Purple Heart.  These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2004, July 2010, and April 2012 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama.  Jurisdiction of the Veteran's claims is now with the RO in Nashville, Tennessee.  

The Board notes that the claims of entitlement to service connection for a skin disability other than acne, to include hidradenitis and neurodermatitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and peptic ulcer disease, degenerative joint disease of the left wrist, residuals of a left arm wound, lumbar and cervical spine disabilities, and bronchitis, are in appellate status.  The Veteran presented testimony for these appeals in November 2010 before an Acting Veterans Law Judge, and in March 2011, the Board remanded the claims for further development.  It appears that the RO is still working these claims as no supplemental statement of the case has yet been issued.  These issues will be decided by the Veterans Law Judge to whom relevant testimony was provided in November 2010 upon their return to the Board. 

The Veteran appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2016 for a videoconference hearing.  A transcript of this hearing is of record.  

The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required.


REMAND

Remand regarding all claims on appeal is required to obtain relevant federal records.  VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2015).  This includes making as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency, including, but not limited to, records from Federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration (SSA).  38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2).  The Veteran has indicated he is in receipt of Social Security Disability benefits and/or Supplemental Security Income benefits.  Most recently, in a September 2015 update from the SSA, the Veteran was listed as being in receipt of disability benefits from SSA.  The medical records upon which the award was based have not been associated with the record, and the Board finds that such records may be pertinent to his claims.  Remand is necessary, therefore, in order to obtain any outstanding relevant SSA records.  

Next, the Board finds that new examinations are warranted for the Veteran's claims of entitlement to increased disability ratings for PTSD, residuals of a right ankle injury, and acne.  Where the Veteran asserts, or the evidence reflects, that a disorder has worsened since a prior examination, a new examination must be ordered.  See VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (April 7, 1995); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994).  

Regarding PTSD, the Veteran testified in January 2016 that his PTSD had progressively worsened.  The Veteran was last examined for his PTSD in June 2014.  At the 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he changed medication for his PTSD recently while describing how his symptoms had worsened.  Regarding acne, although the Veteran recently underwent an examination for his skin in January 2016, at the 2016 hearing, the Veteran described acne affecting over 40 percent of his body, and he described having acne on his back, arms, legs, and all cover his body.  These statements, if true, represent a worse state of acne than identified in the January 2016 examination.  Regarding residuals of a right ankle injury, at the January 2016 hearing, the Veteran reported that his right ankle disability had worsened and described having flare-ups.  At the June 2014 examination, the Veteran denied flare-ups.  In light of the testimony and evidence regarding each of the above-noted issues, new examinations must be conducted to ascertain the current severity of the service-connected disabilities.  

Finally, the Board notes that the issue of entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the increased rating issues remanded herein.  Harris v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991).  Hence, a determination on the claim for TDIU should be deferred pending final disposition of the increased rating issues.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Contact the appropriate VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment.  If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file.  Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile.  The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record.  Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his or her representative.  

2.  Contact the SSA and obtain a copy of that agency's decision concerning the Veteran's claim for disability benefits, including any medical records used to make the decision.  If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file.  Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile.  The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record.  Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his or her representative.  
  
3.  Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address and dates of treatment or examination any relevant medical records.  Subsequently, and after securing the proper authorizations where necessary, make arrangements to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran which are not already on file.  All information obtained must be made part of the file. 

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pergola v. Derwinski
2 Vet. App. 180 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Caffrey v. Brown
6 Vet. App. 377 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
Snuffer v. Gober
10 Vet. App. 400 (Veterans Claims, 1997)
Stegall v. West
11 Vet. App. 268 (Veterans Claims, 1998)
Kutscherousky v. West
12 Vet. App. 369 (Veterans Claims, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
05-15 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/05-15-977-bva-2016.