BVA9502263 DOCKET NO. 93-08 383 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Whether the veteran's child, Ruth, became permanently incapacitated for self-support due to physical and mental disability before her 18th birthday. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sandra L. Smith, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1944 to April 1946 and from January 1951 to October 1969 and he died in July 1991. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from an April 1992 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) which denied helpless child status to the appellant. The case is now ready for appellate review. REMAND The appellant is contending that the severity of her congenital eye disability rendered her permanently incapable of providing for her own support prior to her 18th birthday. In support of her claim, the veteran submitted several written statements from medical professionals as to her current condition. She testified at a personal hearing in October 1992 that she had received disability payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA) since the age of 16 because of her eye disability. The appellant also provided the names of several medical facilities where she had received treatment for her eye disorder as a child. The Board notes that the RO's attempts to obtain medical records of treatment prior to the appellant's 18th birthday were unsuccessful. However, the requests for records from Brookdale General Hospital and Kings County Medical Center were apparently made under the veteran's name, SSA number and date of birth. In addition, the Board notes that the SSA failed to respond at all to the RO's inquiry for information. The VA has a duty to assist the appellant in developing pertinent information relating to her claim pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The Court of Veterans Appeals has held that the VA's duty to assist includes obtaining complete Social Security records where the appellant has been awarded SSA benefits and the records might be needed by the VA for evaluation of pending claims. Martin v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 136, 140 (1993); See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). The Board notes that in a June 1983 statement the veteran reported he had knowledge that the appellant, then 23 years old, was married and working. The Board further notes that the appellant has not been afforded a VA examination to determine the extent and nature of her alleged eye disability. This information, even though many years after her 18th birthday, may be helpful. The VA has a duty to assist the appellant in developing pertinent information relating to her claim pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that the duty to assist also includes providing a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, which takes into account prior medical evaluations and treatment. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991). The Court has also held that when the Board concludes the medical evidence of record is insufficient it may supplement the record by ordering a medical examination. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171 (1991). In light of the above facts and law, the Board has determined that the case must be REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should attempt to obtain records of treatment of the appellant from the Brookdale Hospital Medical Center and from Kings County Medical Center under the appellant's name, SSA number and date of birth. Records from Brookdale Hospital Medical Center should also be searched under Unit #441750, the number indicated on a June 1993 staement from that facility. 2. The RO should obtain from the Social Security Administration copies of all records pertaining to any disability determination, including copies of all medical records considered in adjudicating the appellant's eligibility for Social Security benefits. 3. The RO should schedule the appellant for a social and industrial survey and, if necessary, conduct a field investigation, to determine the level of education attained by the appellant, dates of school attendance and grades, any employment as indicated in the veteran's 1983 statement, marital status past and present, and general activities prior to and after her 18th birthday. 4. The appellant should be afforded a VA ophthalmology examination by a specialist to determine the nature and severity of any eye pathology. Subjective complaints and objective findings should be legibly recorded in detail. All indicated tests and studies should also be conducted. The claims folder must be made available for review by the medical examiner prior to the examination to facilitate study of this case. The examiner should also express an opinion as to whether the appellant's current eye disorder(s) is of such severity so as to render her permanently incapable of self-support. And, if so, the examiner should also express an opinion as to whether the appellant was permanently incapacitated prior to her 18th birthday. The examiner should be requested to present all opinions and findings, and the reasons therefor, in a clear, comprehensive, and legible manner on the examination report. If the claim remains denied, the appellant and her representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and they should be afforded the appropriate period of time within which to respond thereto. Then, if otherwise in order, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. No action is required of the appellant until she is notified. The Board intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition warranted in this case, pending completion of the requested development. HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN 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) (1993).