BVA9501404 DOCKET NO. 93-07 428 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for residuals of a nasal fracture. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for residuals of a right knee injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Puerto Rico Public Advocate for Veterans Affairs WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bernard T. DoMinh, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1954 to February 1956. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a 1990 rating decision by the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied the veteran's applications to reopen his claims (previously denied by a 1978 Board decision) for service connection for residuals of a nasal fracture and of a right knee injury. A review of the claims folder indicates that further evidentiary development is warranted with regard to the application to reopen the claim for service connection for residuals of a nasal fracture. Therefore, the Board will hold his appeal, relating to his application to reopen his claim for service connection for residuals of a right knee injury, in abeyance, pending completion of the remand development of the nasal fracture claim. REMAND The veteran's application to reopen the claim for service connection for residuals of a nasal fracture is well grounded, meaning not inherently implausible, and the file indicates there is a further VA duty to assist him in the development of the evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1993). The veteran's service medical records show that in April 1954, he fractured his nose and the injury was treated. In a private medical statement dated in September 1991 from Andres Maeso Schroeder, M.D., it was reported that the veteran was treated by Dr. Schroeder for a complaint of breathing difficulties. Examination reportedly revealed a collapsed "K" over the nose and deviation of the nasal septum to the left, causing mild nasal obstruction. Dr. Schroeder opined that this condition was most likely related to the history of a fractured nose sustained during 1954. In the judgment of the Board, the duty to assist in this case requires a contemporaneous VA examination which takes into account the historical records. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991); Ivey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 320 (1992). Moreover, further development of the historical medical records is warranted. In this regard, the file indicates that many of the historical VA treatment records submitted with the latest application were provided by the veteran himself. The RO should itself obtain all VA medical records, to assure their completeness. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should obtain all of the veteran's VA inpatient and outpatient medical treatment files, from the VA medical center in San Juan or elsewhere, containing all records of VA treatment the veteran has received since his 1956 release from active duty. These files should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The veteran should thereafter undergo a VA ear, nose, and throat (ENT) examination to determine the existence and etiology of any residuals of a nasal fracture. A detailed history should be elicited. The claims folder and VA medical treatment records files must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The doctor should note the service medical records related to the 1954 nasal fracture, and the intervening medical records should also be reviewed. Thereafter, the doctor should give an opinion on whether or not any current ENT findings represent residuals of the 1954 nasal fracture. Thereafter, the RO should review the application to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for residuals of a nasal fracture. If action remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond. Then the case (including the claims folder and all VA medical treatment files) should be returned to the Board. L. W. TOBIN 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).