BVA9501262 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 792     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a kidney disorder,
claimed as secondary to service-connected hypertensive vascular
disease.

2.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for
hypertensive vascular disease.

3.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for
bilateral pes planus.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Paul J. Somelofske, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from April 1943 to March 1946.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office
(RO), that denied service connection for a kidney disorder,
claimed as secondary to service-connected hypertensive vascular
disease, an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for hypertensive
vascular disease and an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for
bilateral pes planus.

In an April 1993 Statement of Accredited Representation in
Appealed Case, it appears that the issue of service connection
for gout, claimed as secondary to hypertensive vascular disease,
has been raised.  This issue has not been developed for appeal,
nor is it inextricably intertwined with any of the certified
issues on appeal; it is referred to the RO for consideration.

REMAND

In February 1992, the veteran underwent VA nerve conduction
studies.  It was reported at the time that he had difficulty heel
and toe walking, and had poor balance.  In July 1992, the veteran
was afforded a VA medical examination.  As part of the
"Hypertension" examination, the physician evaluated the veteran's
feet.  It is apparent that VA's Physician Guide for Disability
Evaluation Examinations, IB 11-56, § 2.28 - 2.30 was not
consulted.  The examination appears inadequate for rating
purposes, particularly when keeping in mind the findings reported
in February 1992.  38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5276
described the criteria necessary for a higher evaluation.  For
example:  Marked deformity (pronation, abduction, etc.), pain on
manipulation, pain on use of the feet, callosities, etc.  None of
the symptoms for either a 10 or 30 percent rating were reported.

The VA has a duty to assist the appellant in the development of
facts pertinent to the claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).
This duty extends to obtaining a thorough VA medical examination.
Under the circumstances, the case is remanded for the following:

1.  The RO is to obtain and associated
with the claims folder the veteran's VA
outpatient treatment records, from January
1992 to the present time.

2.  The veteran is to be afforded a VA
medical  examination to evaluate his
bilateral pes planus.  The VA's Physician
Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations, IB 11-56, §§ 2.28 to 2.30
should be used as a guideline in examining
the feet.  The claims folder should be made
available to the examiner before the
examination.  The finding should be
reported in detail, with reasons and bases
given to support the diagnosis.

Following completion of the development, the RO is to review the
claim.  If the claim remains denied, the veteran and his
representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of
the case.  They should be afforded the appropriate period of time
within which to respond thereto, at their option, as provided by
governing regulation.  Then, if otherwise in order, the case
should be returned to the Board after compliance with all
requisite appellate procedures.  The issues of service connection
for a kidney disorder, claimed as secondary to service-connected
hypertensive vascular disease, and an increased rating for
hypertensive vascular disease will be held in abeyance pending
completion of the remand.

RENÉE M. PELLETIER
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

(CONTINUED 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).