BVA9503547 
DOCKET NO.  92-02 124     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans,
Louisiana

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for multiple joint arthritis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Catherine Spalding, Attorney

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. Jennifer Lane

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from October 1940 to November
1942.

This case originated from a rating decision dated in April 1990,
in which the RO denied the veteran's request to reopen a claim
for service connection for multiple joint arthritis which had
been denied by a final Board decision dated in May 1989.  The
veteran appealed the RO denial of his request to reopen the
claim, and the Board issued a decision in July 1992.  At that
time, the Board determined that new and material evidence had
been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service
connection for multiple joint arthritis but that service
connection was not warranted for that disability.  The veteran
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Veterans
Appeals (Court).  The Court subsequently vacated the July 1992
Board decision and remanded the case to the Board for further
proceedings.  [citation redacted].


REMAND

This case is remanded in accordance with the Court's instructions
set forth in [redacted].  The Board also notes that in a letter dated
in February 1995, the veteran's representative requested that a
hearing be scheduled at the RO.  Additionally, review of the
claims file discloses that the statement of the case and
supplemental statements of the case do not include citation of
the laws and regulations regarding presumptive service connection
for arthritis which is manifest to a compensable degree within
one year after the veteran's separation from service.  Therefore,
such laws and regulations should be included in the next
supplemental statement of the case if one is issued.  38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7105(d)(1)(B) (West 1991).

Also, according to the veteran and his spouse, in letters dated
in October 1991 and January 1995, respectively, the veteran has
received treatment from Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
medical facilities in "Pineville", Shreveport, Alexandria and New
Orleans, Louisiana and Barksdale Air Force Base Hospital since
his discharge from service.  However, the claims file does not
appear to include records of all the treatment reported by the
veteran and his spouse.  They also related that the veteran
received treatment for arthritic complaints from various private
physicians since service but that some of those physicians have
passed away.  Because, it is not clear as to whether attempts
have been made to obtain treatment records from all those who
have treated the veteran for multiple joint arthritis, the RO
should assist the veteran in trying to obtain such records.  38
U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).

To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the veteran in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should schedule a hearing and
inform the veteran that he may submit
additional evidence on the merits of the
reopened claim for entitlement to service
connection for multiple joint arthritis.

2.  The RO should request copies of all
medical records regarding the veteran from
Frank T. Dienst, Jr., M.D., dated since
1947.  Any authorization necessary for the
release of the documents should be obtained
from the veteran.

3.  The RO should also obtain the names and
addresses of any other medical care
provider who treated the veteran for
multiple joint arthritis since service.
After securing the necessary release, the
RO should request copies of records of any
such treatment, including records from
Barksdale Air Force Base Hospital.

4.  The RO should also request copies of
all VA treatment records pertaining to
treatment of the veteran since service from
the medical facilities in "Pineville",
Shreveport, Alexandria and New Orleans,
Louisiana.

5.  After the above development has been
accomplished, the RO should schedule the
veteran for a comprehensive VA orthopedic
examination which should be performed in
accordance with the VA Physician's Guide
for Disability Evaluation Examinations and
should include all necessary tests and
studies.  Additionally, the examiner must
be allowed the opportunity to review the
veteran's claims file prior to the
examination.  The purpose of this
examination is to ascertain the nature and
severity of any arthritis involving joints
other than the left knee.  After reviewing
the veteran's claims file and examination
of the veteran, the examining physician
should provide an opinion as to the
etiology and date of onset of any multiple
joint arthritis.  It is requested the
examiner provide the reasons for the
decision.

6.  The RO should then take appropriate
adjudicative action on the issue of
entitlement to service connection for
multiple joint arthritis.  If the RO's
decision is adverse to the veteran, he and
his representative should be furnished with
a supplemental statement of the case, which
includes the laws and regulations regarding
presumptive service connection for
arthritis, and afforded a reasonable period
of time to respond.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The veteran need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          U. R. POWELL
          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).