BVA9502024 DOCKET NO. 93-05 520 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Salt Lake City, Utah THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for anterior cervical disc fusion C5-6 involving minor hand residuals, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. Greif, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from April 1975 to August 1978. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 1991 rating decision from the Salt Lake City, Utah, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In that rating decision, the RO denied an increased rating for anterior cervical disc fusion C5-6 involving minor hand residuals (cervical spine disorder), rated as 30 percent disabling. A RO hearing was held in September 1992. REMAND As noted, the veteran is currently assigned a 30 percent disability rating for anterior cervical disc fusion C5-6 involving minor hand residuals . However, she contends that her cervical spine disorder causes limitation of motion of the cervical spine. Specifically, she claims that she should receive a separate rating for her cervical spine disorder under the Diagnostic Code used to rate limitation of motion of the cervical spine. The veteran's last disability compensation examination was conducted in 1992. Records on file reflect that the veteran was examined by various private physicians in January and February 1993. However, it does not appear that all the records from his private physicians have been obtained. Those records are pertinent to the current claim and should be associated with the claims folder. Furthermore, updated orthopedic and neurologic examinations will facilitate reaching an equitable decision in this case. On a March 1993 statement the veteran's representative stated that the RO hearing officer displayed an abusive attitude towards the veteran. The representative has requested that the veteran be afforded another personal hearing at the RO. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support her claim includes obtaining evidence from any source, and obtaining adequate VA examinations. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). This duty also includes obtaining available evidence to support the claim. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In view of the foregoing, the Board finds further development is in order to assist the veteran in the development of her claim. Therefore, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The veteran should be requested to furnish the names of all health care providers who have treated her for her service-connected cervical spine disorder since 1990 surgical procedure. After having obtained the appropriate releases, the RO should make the necessary arrangements in order to obtain copies of all private medical records not already on file, concerning treatment of the veteran. The RO should also obtain copies of any VA outpatient reports, not already on file, concerning treatment of this veteran. If any records are not available, that fact should be annotated in the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be asked whether she wishes to testify at another RO hearing. If so, another hearing should be promptly scheduled. 3. The veteran should be accorded orthopedic and neurology examinations to determine the nature and extent of the service-connected cervical spine disorder. All necessary tests and X- rays should be conducted and the results reviewed by the examiners prior to the completion of their reports. The reports of examination should include a detailed account of all manifestations of cervical spine pathology found to be present. Special attention should be given to any limitation of motion, pain, the presence or absence of muscle spasm on extreme forward bending, and radicular neuropathy. All ranges of motion should be reported in degrees. The complete claims folder and a copy of this remand should be made available and reviewed by the examiners prior to the examinations. The reports of examinations should include a complete rationale for all conclusions reached. 4. The RO should review the reports of examination and determine if they are adequate for rating purposes and in compliance with this Remand. If not, they should be returned for corrective action. 5. After the foregoing, the RO should formally adjudicate the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for anterior cervical disc fusion of C5-6 involving minor hand residuals, to include the question of whether a separate disability rating is warranted for limitation of motion of the cervical spine. Following completion of these actions and, if the decision remains unfavorable, the veteran and her representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable period of time in which to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with the current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for completion of appellate review. No action is required of the veteran until further notice is issued. JOAQUIN AGUAYO-PERELES 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).