BVA9506496 
DOCKET NO.  93-16 419     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to special monthly pension.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Mark J. Swiatek, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from November 1942 to October
1945.  He died in March 1986.  The appellant, the veteran's
widow, submitted a claim for death pension and special monthly
pension in February 1992.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from a June 1992 decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  It is
asserted, in essence, that the appellant' should be granted
special monthly pension based on the need for the regular
assistance of another person or being housebound.

The Board observes that the record does not include an
examination of the appellant for an aid and attendance or
housebound benefit determination.  Paul M. Kuzma, Jr., M.D.,
reported in February 1992 that the appellant was able to count
fingers at 2 feet in the right eye (20/800) and had 20/200 visual
acuity in the left eye.  She reported in a February 1992
communication to the RO that the medical report indicated that
she was "legally blind".  The representative has asserted that
the claim should be returned to the RO for proper development.

In order to ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the
appellant with regard to developing the facts pertinent to a
claim, and ensure due process, it is the opinion of the Board
that further development as set forth below is desirable.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
action:

1.  The RO should request the appellant
provide the names and addresses of all
health care providers who have treated her
recently for any disability.  The RO should
attempt to obtain copies of those treatment
records identified by the appellant which
have not been previously secured.  This
should include records from Paul Michael
Kuzma, Jr., M.D., 255 Third Street, Beaver,
PA 15009.

2.  Following completion of the above
development, the appellant should be
afforded a VA medical examination for the
purpose of determining housebound status or
permanent need for regular aid and
attendance.  The claims folder should be
made available to the examiner prior to the
examination.  All indicated tests should be
accomplished.  The examination report
should include a medical history and
sufficient data to determine the
appellant's living circumstances.

3.  When the above development has been
completed, the RO should readjudicate the
issue on appeal.  If the decision remains
adverse to the appellant, she and her
representative should be furnished with a
supplemental statement of the case and they
should then be afforded the applicable time
to respond.

Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case
should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration, if appropriate.  The appellant need take no action
until she is further informed.  The purpose of this REMAND is to
obtain additional information and assure due process of law.  No
inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the
claim as a result of this action.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          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 deter-
mination.  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 Improvement 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) (1993).