BVA9506483 DOCKET NO. 93-09 693 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) in Manila, Philippines. Transferred by the VARO in Los Angeles, California. THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of malaria. 2. Entitlement to service connection for chronic dysentery. 3. Entitlement to service connection for beriberi. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral cataracts. 5. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral myopia. 6. Entitlement to service connection for hypertensive heart disease. 7. Entitlement to service connection for urinary tract infections. 8. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of multiple joints. 9. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 10. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of malnutrition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Frank L. Christian, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from November 1941 to September 1942 and from January 1945 to June 1946. He was a prisoner of war (POW) of the Japanese Government from April 10, 1942 to September 1, 1942. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of September 1986 from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Manila, Philippines. The claims file has since been transferred to the jurisdiction of the VARO in Los Angeles, California. REMAND The veteran contends that each of the disabilities at issue was incurred during his period of active service or are a consequence of brutal treatment, hardship, and deprivation experienced while a POW. As noted, a rating decision of September 1986 denied service connection for the disabilities at issue and the veteran was given appropriate notification of those adverse determinations. However, that letter of notification apparently failed to include a Notice of Procedural and Appellate Rights (VA Form 1-4107a), as required by 38 C.F.R.§ 3.103(b)(1)(1994). Although the veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement and requested VA Form 1- 4107a, the RO failed to provide a statement of the case and no further action was taken with respect to the veteran's appeal. The veteran subsequently undertook to reopen his claims in April 1992. Thereafter, the RO determined that no action had been taken with respect to the timely notice of disagreement filed by the veteran. In August 1992, a statement of the case was issued, addressing the disabilities at issue. In April 1993, the veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing conducted by the Board member signing below. At that hearing, the veteran's representative requested, among other things, that the veteran be afforded another VA examination with respect to his claimed disabilities. To the extent indicated, the Board will accede to that request. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(c) (1994) provides, in pertinent part, that where a veteran is a former POW, interned or detained for not less than 30 days, service connection shall be granted for certain diseases if manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more following final service separation even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided the rebuttable presumption provisions of § 3.307 are also satisfied. Among the diseases specific as to former POW's is post-traumatic osteoarthritis. While arthritis of multiple joints was shown on VA examination in June and July 1986, there was no indication as to whether this disability was post-traumatic in nature. The Board finds that this particular claim is plausible and thus well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A.§ 5107(a)(West 1991), and that VA's duty to assist requires further development of the evidence with respect to that claim. Based upon the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he supply specific names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers from whom he has received treatment since service separation for any of the disabilities at issue. With any necessary authorization, the RO should attempt to obtain the treatment records identified by the veteran that have not been secured previously. All such evidence should be reviewed and associated with the claims file. 2. Thereafter, the RO should schedule a VA examination by a board certified specialist in orthopedics, if available, to determine the current nature and extent of any multijoint arthritis found to be present. In addition, the RO should schedule appropriate VA examination with respect to any disability which is clinically shown or diagnosed pursuant to the development described in subparagraph 1, supra, and which is either PTSD or among the POW presumptive diseases set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(c). All necessary and appropriate diagnostic tests and procedures should be conducted and the findings reported in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The examining orthopedist and any other examining physician(s) should be asked to review the claims file, particularly the report of VA examination conducted in June and July 1986, prior to conducting the requested examination(s). The examining orthopedist should be asked to state whether any arthritis found is, in his judgment, as likely as not, traumatic in nature. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case on all issues in appellate status, and the veteran and his representative should be provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. J. J. SCHULE Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).