BVA9500439 DOCKET NO. 93-06 697 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Whether the veteran's daughter, [redacted], became permanently incapable of self-support prior to reaching age 18. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. A. Caffery, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1972 to December 1975. This is an appeal from an October 1992 rating action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office Montgomery, Alabama, which held that the veteran's daughter, [redacted], did not become permanently incapable of self-support prior to reaching age 18. REMAND The record reflects that the veteran has established service connection for a cardiac condition, rated 100 percent disabling since 1985. His daughter, [redacted], was born in September 1969. In June 1992, the veteran submitted a claim for additional disability compensation for his daughter, [redacted], on the basis that she had become permanently incapable of self-support prior to reaching age 18. A number of medical records were submitted in connection with the claim including an April 1991 statement by Guy J. Renfro, Ph.D., who indicated that he had seen [redacted] in April 1991 for mental status examination and psychological testing. It was reported that she had experienced memory problems since being involved in a motor vehicle accident in March 1991. It was also indicated that she had received mental health treatment when she had attended the Autauga County Mental Health Center about one year previously. Various findings were recorded, including anxiety. The records also include a May 1992 psychological consultation by Glen D. King, Ph.D., reflecting a diagnosis of conversion disorder. There is also a May 1992 statement by Gerald J. Laymon, a State rehabilitation counselor reflecting that the appellant was currently attending the Easter Seal rehabilitation center in an extended evaluation program. There was also submitted a July 1992 statement by Mont F. Highley III, M.D., reflecting that [redacted] was unable to support herself due to her learning disorder which had been present since early childhood. He stated that she also had a seizure disorder that had left her indefinitely disabled. In his substantive appeal in January 1993, the veteran indicated that in July 1971 [redacted] had been placed on Phenobarbital at an Air Force base hospital and she remained on that medication until January 1975 when the medication was discontinued by a physician at the Maxwell Air Force Base Hospital. He stated that [redacted] had remained free of medication until age 14 in 1983 when she was again placed on Dilantin by Dr. John Hackman. He stated that she remained on that medication only a short time when it was decided by Dr. Reeves, along with Dr. Hackman that the Dilantin alone was not sufficient so they decided to add Phenobarbital. Dr. Reeves at that time had been associated with Dr. Highley. The veteran further indicated that a short time later, Dr. Reeves left Dr. Highley's office but [redacted]'s medical record remained with Dr. Highley. Then [redacted] transferred to a Dr. Charles Cloutier. She had remained on Dilantin and Phenobarbital until November 1989 when Dr. Cloutier decided she could possibly be taken off medication. The veteran further related that in March 1990 [redacted] had been riding in an automobile and had been involved in an accident. She had sustained a concussion. Dr. Cloutier decided to resume both of her medications because of past seizure problems. The veteran related that after [redacted]'s release from the hospital, she remained a patient of Dr. Cloutier for a few months and then again obtaining treatment from Dr. Highley and was currently receiving treatment from that physician. The veteran further related that currently [redacted] was on no medication but still had severe headaches and had a problem with her arm and hand. She also had a problem with her nerves and could not remember anything that happened while she was upset. He stated that she had recently been treated at the Jackson Hospital where she had been seen by Margaret S. Bok, M.D., a psychiatrist. He indicated that she was currently going to the Maxwell Air Force Base Hospital for followup treatment. The veteran has provided authorizations for release of information (VA Form 21-4142) for records of P. Caudill Miller, M.D., Karl Kirkland, Ph.D., Dr. Bok, Dr. Renfro, Dr. Cloutier, Dr. Highley and Dr. Hackman.. However, it does not appear that any attempt has been made to obtain records of [redacted]'s treatment by those individuals. In view of the aforementioned matters and in order to afford the veteran every consideration, findings of fact and conclusions of law are being deferred pending a REMAND for the following action: 1. The veteran should be contacted and asked to provide authorizations for the release of information from the Autauga County Mental Health Center reflecting treatment of [redacted] in about April 1990 and the Jackson Hospital in late 1992 as well as records from Maxwell Air Force Base Hospital from 1992 to the current time. Those facilities should then be contacted and asked to provide copies of records of treatment of [redacted] for the periods involved. Any such records obtained should then be associated with the claims file. 2. Drs. Miller, Kirkland, Bok, Renfro, Cloutier, Highley and Hackman should be contacted and asked to provide copies of their office records reflecting treatment of [redacted] for psychiatric or neurological problems. Mr. Laymon should also be contacted and asked to provide a report reflecting rehabilitation services provided [redacted] by the State subsequent to May 1992. The foregoing medical and rehabilitation records should also be associated with the claims file. 3. [redacted] should be afforded a general medical examination and special psychiatric and neurological examinations in order to determine the current nature and severity of all of her disabilities. Any indicated special studies should be conducted. The claims file should be made available to the examiners for review. To the extent possible, the examiner should express an opinion as to the degree of functional impairment associated with any condition present. 4. The veteran's claim should then be reviewed by the regional office. If the denial is continued, the veteran and his representative should be sent a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the appropriate time in which to respond. When the above action has been completed, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying information. The Board intimates no opinion as to the disposition warranted in this case pending completion of the requested action. WAYNE M. BRAEUER 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).