BVA9504033 DOCKET NO. 93-09 246 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder as secondary to service-connected low back and right hip disability. 2. Entitlement to an increase in the currently assigned 30 percent evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and agoraphobia. 3. Entitlement to an increase in the currently assigned 10 percent evaluation for a low back and right hip disorder. 4. Entitlement to an increase in the currently assigned 10 percent evaluation for degenerative joint disease in the right shoulder. 5. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for defective hearing in the left ear. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. D. Hayden, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran performed active duty from September 1966 to May 1989. This matter has come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Seattle, Washington. REMAND An allegation of increased disability generally establishes a well-grounded claim. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 269 (1992). The VA has the duty to assist appellants in developing the facts pertinent to their claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). It has been asserted that the veteran is entitled to separate evaluations for his back and right hip because each was injured during service. Also, the veteran has asserted that altered gait and weight bearing as a result of the plantar wart on his right foot might be the cause of his right knee disorder. Following the July 1992 VA examination, the examiner said that the veteran's right knee disorder was not related to his back or right hip disorders. Any relationship to the service-connected plantar wart on the right foot was not addressed. The appellant has not been provided with the laws and regulations concerning secondary service connection. In a July 1991 statement, the veteran expressed dissatisfaction with all ratings except for the service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder, and right shoulder. However, later statements from his representative take issue with the ratings for post-traumatic stress disorder, and right shoulder. Clarification of whether these issues are being appealed is necessary. Because of the VA's duty to assist the veteran in developing the facts pertinent to his claim, additional development must be undertaken prior to further appellate review. Id. The case is, accordingly, REMANDED for the following additional development: 1. The veteran should be examined by a specialist in orthopedics, preferably one who has not previously examined him, to determine the nature and extent of the disorders of the right knee, right hip and back. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (Physician's Guide) and include all indicated tests and studies, including X- ray studies. The examiner should be furnished the claims folder for review prior to the examination. The examiner should be requested to provide the most probable diagnosis for any knee disorder found and to note whether the veteran has a weight-bearing or gait abnormality which might be the cause of any knee disorder and, if so, whether there is a causal relationship between the plantar wart on the right foot and such altered gait or weight bearing. 2. Any current outpatient and inpatient treatment records pertaining to the service-connected disorders should be obtained and associated with the claims file. 3. The veteran should be requested whether he is appealing the ratings for the PTSD and the right shoulder. He is to be invited to submit or identify any additional evidence he wishes to have considered. If he chooses to identify the evidence, he should provide sufficient detail to allow VA personnel to assist him in obtaining it. If the identified information is medical, he should be requested to authorize its release and furnished the necessary forms to do so. Any additional evidence the veteran wishes to have considered should be obtained and associated with the claims file. The veteran should be requested to report whether there has been a change in his occupational status and, if so, the reason therefor. If indicated, he should be examined by a psychiatrist or other appropriate specialist. 38 C.F.R. § 3.326 (1994). Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development actions have been completed to the extent possible. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. When the foregoing development is complete, the case should be readjudicated by the RO. If the benefits sought are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a suitable opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board in accordance with the applicable procedures regarding the processing of appeals. No further action is required of the veteran unless he receives further notice. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion regarding the decision warranted, either factual or legal. RENÉE M. PELLETIER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE) 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).