BVA9502516 DOCKET NO. 92-17 814 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Providence, Rhode Island THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for numbness of the left leg. 2. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the low back. 3. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left knee. 4. Entitlement to service connection for peptic ulcer disease. 5. Entitlement to an increased rating for postoperative residuals of excision of a fibrosarcoma of the right thigh, currently rated as 40 percent disabling. 6. Entitlement to an increased rating for postoperative residuals of excision of an osteochrondroma of the right thigh, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Massachusetts Department of Veterans Service WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran and N.E.G. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. D. Harrigan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from August 1951 to August 1955 and from November 1955 to November 1961. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 1991 decision of the Providence, Rhode Island Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which denied entitlement to increased ratings for postoperative residuals of excision of a fibrosarcoma of the right thigh and for postoperative residuals of excision of an osteochrondroma of the right thigh. The notice of disagreement was received on April 22, 1991. The statement of the case was issued on August 8, 1991. The substantive appeal was received on August 16, 1991. While that appeal was pending the veteran raised the additional issues of entitlement to service connection for numbness of the left leg, degenerative joint disease of the low back, degenerative joint disease of the left knee, and peptic ulcer disease. Those issues were denied by the RO in a decision dated February 5, 1992. The notice of disagreement was received on May 19, 1992. The statement of the case was issued on June 1, 1992. The statement of the veteran's representative dated September 11, 1992 is accepted as a substantive appeal with regard to those issues. This case was remanded by the Board in February 1993. REMAND In its initial remand of this case, the board asked that the complete treatment reports of the veteran's treatment at the VA Medical Center in Providence, RI (VAMC) be obtained and associated with the claims folder. An Exchange of Beneficiary Information and Request for Administrative and Adjudicative Action (VA Form 10-7131) dated March 4, 1993 appears to show that some records were received including X-ray reports dated from March 2, 1990 through November 2, 1992 and a hospital summary dated October 12, 1971 which are not in the veteran's claims file. Further requests for additional medical records resulted in a response dated in June 1994 which indicated that there was a volume I of the veteran's medical records which could not be located and would be forwarded as soon as it was located. A Report of Contact dated in August 1994 shows that it was reported that there were no admissions in the veteran's chart, that all records from February 1990 to November 1992 were previously sent, and that there were no other records to send. The record also shows that in April 1976 the VAMC requested verification of the veteran's service, presumably because he had requested treatment. On VA examination in May 1993 the gastrointestinal examiner referred to an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) done at the VAMC in November 1988. No medical record of that procedure is in the veteran's claims file. In a letter dated in February 1991 the veteran referred to 18 appointments at the VAMC. No records of those appointments appear in the claims folder. In view of the foregoing, it is the opinion of the Board that additional action is necessary before a final determination of this claim Accordingly, the claim is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should again attempt to obtain complete treatment records including outpatient treatment records and complete records of any periods of hospitalization at the VAMC. The request for such records should not be limited by date. Copies of all records, including those previously sent, should be obtained. If the records obtained do not include all of the items mentioned above and complete clinical records of periods of hospitalization at the VAMC from March to April 1965 and from October to November 1968, the VAMC should be asked to provide a description of the scope of the records search conducted and the reasons for the records being incomplete. All records obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 2. After the above requested records search is completed, the claims folder, including all new records obtained, should be provided to the physicians who examined the veteran in May 1993 for review and expression of an opinion as to the etiology of the veteran's gastric ulcer, spondylosis and degenerative disk disease of the lumbosacral spine, degenerative joint disease of the right sacroiliac, meralgia paresthetica of the left thigh, and degenerative joint disease of the left knee. If those physicians are not available to provide an opinion, the veteran should be scheduled for a new examination or examinations as appropriate to determine the nature and extent of any disorder found and to express and opinion as to the etiology of any such disorders in lieu of the opinion requested above. If such new examination or examinations are necessary, the claims file, including all new records obtained, should be provided to the examiner or examiners for review prior to the examination or examinations. When the above action has been completed, the pending issue should be reevaluated by the RO and, in the event that the determination remains adverse to the appellant, the claims folder and assembled data should be returned to the Board for completion of appellate review after compliance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 1991). No action is required by the appellant unless he receives further notice. EUGENE A. O'NEILL 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).