BVA9500479 DOCKET NO. 93-05 306 ) DATE ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for multiple endocrine neoplasia with Zollinger-Ellison disease, to include the question of whether it was proper to reduce the schedular evaluation from 60 percent to 40 percent, effective January 1, 1992. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) disability evaluation for postoperative gastrectomy scar, to include the question of whether it was proper to reduce the schedular evaluation from 10 percent to noncompensably disabling, effective January 1, 1992. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Anna Bryant, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active miliary service from May 1962 to May 1986. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 1991 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which reduced the schedular evaluations for the veteran's service-connected multiple endocrine neoplasia with Zollinger-Ellison disease from 60 percent to 40 percent disabling and postoperative gastrectomy scar from 10 percent to noncompensably disabling, effective January 1, 1992. The veteran has also raised the issues of service connection for several gastrointestinal disorders as secondary to his service- connected multiple endocrine neoplasia with Zollinger-Ellison disease and a total rating based on individual unemployability by reason of service-connected disabilities. However, these issues have not been developed for appellate review and, accordingly, are referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The veteran and his representative contend that increased disability evaluations are warranted for the veteran's service- connected multiple endocrine neoplasia with Zollinger-Ellison disease and postoperative gastrectomy scar. The veteran maintains that he suffers from extreme fatigue, chronic diarrhea, daily nausea, severe headaches and lightheadedness. Additionally, he asserts that the symptomatology attributable to his service-connected gastrectomy scar includes persistent pain and recurring drainage. Review of the evidentiary record reflects that the veteran has not been provided a VA examination referable to the disabilities at issue since May 1991, the examination on which the reductions were based. In this regard, the accredited representative has requested that the veteran be afforded special VA examinations by specialists knowledgeable in endocrine and gastrointestinal disorders for the purpose of determining the current severity of the disabilities. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board concludes that additional medical development of the record would be beneficial prior to appellate disposition. Accordingly, further appellate consideration will be deferred and the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The veteran should be requested to identify any sources of recent medical treatment received by him for the service- connected disabilities at issue, and to furnish signed authorizations for release to the VA of private medical records in connection with each non-VA source he identifies. Copies of the medical records from all sources he identifies (not already in the claims folder) should then be requested. 2. The RO should schedule the veteran for an examination by an appropriate specialist for the purpose of determining the current severity of his service-connected multiple endocrine neoplasia with Zollinger-Ellison disease. All indicated tests and studies should be performed and reported in accordance with the VA I[nformation] B[ulletin] 11-56 Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (March 1, 1985). The claims folder should be made available and reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination of the veteran. 3. The veteran should also be afforded an examination in order to ascertain the current nature and extent of his service- connected postoperative gastrectomy scar. The extent of the involved area should be reported in detail, including measurements of the area of the scarring. Color photographs of the area should also be taken and associated with the examination report. The claims folder should be made available and reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination of the veteran. After the above development has been completed, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims may now be granted. If either determination remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent evidence, fully cites the applicable legal provisions and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision reached. The veteran and his representative should be given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order, following appropriate appellate procedures. The purpose of the REMAND is to further develop the record. The Board does not intimate any opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate disposition warranted in this case. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice. ALBERT D. TUTERA 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) (1993).