BVA9506073 DOCKET NO. 93-13 143 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for residuals of mortar fragment wounds of the right lower extremity. 2. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for residuals of mortar fragment wounds of the left lower extremity. 3. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for hemorrhoids. 4. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for foot fungus. 5. Entitlement to service connection for defective visual acuity, to include myopia, astigmatism, and presbyopia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. S. Kelly, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had over 20 years of military service when he retired in August 1992. From his notice of disagreement and substantive appeal, it appears that the veteran is claiming that his fungus disorder or rash affects his hands as well as the feet. This matter is referred to the regional office for appropriate disposition. A review of the record demonstrates that the veteran had been assigned a 30 percent disability evaluation for residuals of a mortar fragment wound of the right lower extremity and a 10 percent disability evaluation for residuals of a mortar fragment wound of the right lower extremity for over 20 years prior to the regional office's (RO) reductions to noncompensable evaluations for both the right and lower extremities in its January 1993 rating determination. As these disability evaluations were in effect for over 20 years, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) holding in Salgado v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 316 (1993) appears to be relevant to this appeal. In that decision, the Court held that the protection afforded to by 38 U.S.C.A. § 110, which precludes the reduction (except for fraud) of disability ratings in effect for more than twenty years, applies to ratings for compensation purposes whether or not a veteran elects to receive a monetary award. The General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs has issued a precedent opinion discussing the effect of this decision where compensation was discontinued upon a veteran's reentry into active service and not reinstated upon the veteran's discharge from service. O.G.C. Prec. 5-95 (Feb. 6, 1995). A copy of this opinion is attached to this remand. REMAND A review of the claims folder demonstrates that the veteran underwent a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination in November 1992. In a statement dated December 15, 1993, the veteran's representative asserted that the veteran believed his VA examination to have been inadequate. The Board is of the opinion that the performance of additional VA specialized medical evaluation would be beneficial in reaching a determination in this appeal. To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should request that the veteran supply the names, dates, and places, of any individuals or treatment facilities that have treated him for any of the disabilities presently on appeal since November 1992. After having received proper authorization from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of any records not already included in the claims file and associate them with the claims file. 2. Thereafter, the RO should schedule the veteran for an examination by an appropriate medical specialist in order to determine the nature and extent of the veteran's service- connected hemorrhoids. All appropriate tests and studies should be performed and all findings should be reported in detail. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. 3. The veteran should then be scheduled for VA orthopedic and neurological examination of his right and left lower extremities to determine the nature and extent of his service-connected mortar fragment wound residuals. The examinations(s) should include all indicated tests and studies and should be conducted in accordance with the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for study prior to the examination. 4. The RO should then schedule the veteran for a dermatological examination to determine the nature and extent of his service-connected foot fungus. All appropriate tests and studies should be performed and all findings should be reported in detail. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. 5. The RO should then schedule the veteran for a VA ophthalmologic examination to determine the nature and extent of any eye disorder. All necessary tests and studies should be performed and all findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should be specifically requested to render an opinion whether presbyopia, myopia, astigmatism, or any other ocular disorder found constitute either refractive error or a developmental defect. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for study prior to the examination. 6. Following the above requested development, the RO should readjudicate the issues on appeal. The issues of entitlement to increased evaluations for mortar fragment wound residuals of the left and right lower extremities should be adjudicated in light of the Court's holding in Salgado v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 316 (1993) and the General Counsel's opinion dated February 6, 1995. O.G.C. Prec. 5-95 (Feb. 6, 1995). When the development of all issues has been completed, the claims should be reviewed by the RO. If all benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the appellant and his representative should be given a supplemental statement of the case with regard to the additional development and should also be afforded an opportunity to respond. The record should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to the final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is contacted by the RO. JOHN E. ORMOND 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).