BVA9507516 DOCKET NO. 93-14 644 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for hepatitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 4. Entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. W. Loeb, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 30 to December 21, 1973 and from July 1974 to January 1977. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. REMAND In Brown v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 444 (1992), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) set up a test of pension eligibility based on 38 U.S.C.A. § 1521 (West 1991). According to the Court, permanent and total disability is shown either when the veteran is unemployable as a result of a lifetime disability or when he suffers from a lifetime disability which would render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. Id. The Board notes that this test of pension eligibility has not been applied to the veteran's claim. Additionally, as noted on behalf of the veteran in March 1994, no recent VA pension examination report is on file. The Board also notes that the veteran testified at his personal hearing at the RO in August 1992 that he had been treated for a psychiatric disorder soon after service discharge at Saint Joe's ( Saint Joseph's?) Hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and at the VA hospital in Orlando, Florida. In light of the above, the Board finds that additional development is needed prior to a final determination. Consequently, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The veteran should be permitted to submit any additional evidence that is pertinent to any of the issues on appeal. He should also be asked to provide the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment of all health care providers who have treated him for any disability since October 1991, which is the date of the most recent clinical evidence on file. He should be asked to fill out any necessary consent forms for the release of his private medical records. The RO should then request copies of all indicated records and associate them with the claims file. 2. The RO should contact St. Joe's(Saint Joseph's) Hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the VA hospital in Orlando, Florida, and attempt to obtain, and associate with the claims file, copies of the veteran's treatment records, especially from the 1970s. 3. The veteran should be asked to provide an employment history since 1991, to include any unsuccessful attempts to obtain employment. 4. When the above development has been completed, the veteran should be afforded a VA examination for pension purposes to determine the current nature and severity of each of his chronic disorders. All necessary tests and studies, including any special examinations deemed warranted, should be conducted, and all findings should be reported in detail. The examination should be performed and reported in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (March 1, 1985). The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review before examination of the veteran. 5. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issues on appeal. In connection with the readjudication of the issue of entitlement to a permanent and total rating for pension purposes, the RO should determine the correct ratings to be assigned to each of the veteran's disabilities under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. See Roberts v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 387 (1992). The RO should then determine, to include the applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.342 (b)(3) (1994), whether the veteran is permanently and totally disabled under either the "average person" or "unemployability" tests described in Brown above. If the veteran's pension claim continues to be denied, and the veteran's disabilities do not meet the percentage requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (1994), the RO should consider whether the disabilities meet the criteria for a determination of "unemployability" under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(2) (1994). If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued. The veteran and his representative should then be afforded an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. The veteran need take no action until otherwise notified. 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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) (1994).