BVA9508050 DOCKET NO. 91-37 623 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for trichophytosis of the feet and generalized ichthyosis, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael P. Vander Meer, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1943 to November 1945. This appeal arises from a November 1989 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office and Insurance Center (RO&IC) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This case was last before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in March 1993, at which time it was remanded for further development. Following completion of the requested development, a rating decision entered in March 1994 continued to deny the issue on appeal, and a Supplemental Statement of the Case was issued the same month. The appeal was returned to and redocketed at the Board in March 1995. REMAND It is noted that, in response to a directive to the RO&IC included in the March 1993 Board remand to adjudicate the issue of whether an April 1947 rating action reducing the evaluation for the veteran's service-connected skin disability from 30 percent disabling to 10 percent disabling involved clear and unmistakable error, such issue was denied in the above-addressed rating decision entered in March 1994. Thereafter, in correspondence received from the veteran in late March 1994, he expressed disagreement with the foregoing denial. However, the record does not reflect that the veteran was subsequently provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case addressing such issue. Given the context of the current appeal, the Board is of the opinion that further development, as specified below, pertaining to the foregoing clear and unmistakable error issue should be undertaken before a determination bearing on the certified issue for appeal is rendered. The Board further notes that the veteran was afforded a VA dermatology examination in August 1993. However, the Board believes that an updated VA dermatology examination would be helpful before adjudicating the current issue on appeal. Further development in this regard is specified below. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO&IC should contact the veteran and request him to identify the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment for any health care provider(s), other than the VA Medical Center or Outpatient Clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who may possess additional records pertinent to his claim. Thereafter, in light of the response received and after obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO&IC should take appropriate action to obtain copies of any clinical records indicated. In any event, the RO&IC should obtain copies of all clinical records reflecting treatment rendered the veteran since October 1993 at the VA Medical Center and Outpatient Clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Thereafter, the RO&IC should arrange for the veteran to undergo a VA dermatology examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected trichophytosis of the feet and generalized ichthyosis. Any special diagnostic studies deemed necessary should be performed, and photographs of all affected areas are specifically requested. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review prior to the examination. 3. The RO&IC should then review the report pertaining to the VA examination performed in response to the previous directive to ascertain whether such examination is in compliance with the Board's examination instructions. 4. Then, after undertaking any development deemed necessary in addition to that specified above, the RO&IC should readjudicate the issue on appeal. 5. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the veteran and his representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case, which addresses, in any event, the issue of whether an April 1947 rating decision involved clear and unmistakable error and contains all relevant laws and regulations. The veteran should be provided appropriate notice of the requirements to perfect an appeal with respect to the foregoing clear and unmistakable error issue as well as any other issue addressed in the Supplemental Statement of the Case which does not appear on the title page of this decision. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified. F. JUDGE FLOWERS 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).