BVA9508151 DOCKET NO. 93-12 261 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for recurrent right parotid tumor, post operative with secondary seventh cranial nerve paresis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle fracture, secondary to service-connected right ankle disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis. 4. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a right ankle injury. 5. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for chorioretinal inflammatory disease. 6. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 7. Entitlement to a total rating based upon unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James L. March, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1970 to November 1971. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1990 rating decision of the Department of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Wichita, Kansas. In August 1994, the Board remanded the case by letter for consideration of the newly issued regulations concerning Agent Orange claims. The Board notes that the veteran has alleged that he has sinusitis caused by radiation treatment of his recurrent right parotid tumor. The RO should develop the issue of whether benefits are available under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 1991). REMAND The issues, as listed above, were appealed by the veteran following adverse determinations by the RO. The Board notes, however, that the RO has not provided all of the laws and regulation concerning these issues. Specifically, the rating criteria regarding the veteran's service-connected eye disability have not been provided. Also the newly issued regulations involving Agent Orange exposed veterans were not provided in a Supplemental Statement of the Case. It should be noted that the RO had previously denied entitlement to service connection for a right ankle fracture, but the RO found that new and material evidence had been submitted and reopened the claim; thus, the issue is on appeal on a de novo basis. Similarly, service connection for the recurrent right parotid tumor also was previously denied, but only on a direct basis and not as secondary to Agent Orange exposure. As this claim is based at least in part on a different theory, the issue is also on appeal de novo. The veteran has also complained that his service-connected eye and right ankle disabilities have worsened. However, there are no current comprehensive VA examinations. The Board is of the opinion that current VA examinations are necessary before these claims can be addressed on appeal. Finally, the Board notes that the veteran was awarded disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, the evidence upon which the SSA based its decision is not of record. These records must be obtained in order to properly consider the veteran's claim of entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). In light of the foregoing, the Board is REMANDING this case for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the SSA and request copies of its decision and the medical records supporting its decision to grant the veteran disability benefits. 2. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him since service for right ankle disability, recurrent right parotid tumor, post operative with secondary seventh cranial nerve paresis, a right ankle fracture, and sinusitis, and in recent years for right ankle injury, PTSD and/or chorioretinal disease. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the veteran in response to this request, which have not been previously secured. 3. The veteran should be contacted and asked whether he contends that the right parotid tumor was caused solely by exposure to Agent Orange, and whether his sinusitis was caused solely by VA treatment. 4. The RO should schedule the veteran for a comprehensive VA neuropsychiatric examination to determine the extent of his PTSD. This study must be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated tests, including appropriate psychological studies with applicable subscales, must be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination. The examiner must assign a GAF score consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL FOR MENTAL DISORDERS (3d ed. rev., 1987), and explain what the assigned score represents. The examiner should be requested to comment on the impact of the service-connected PTSD on the veteran's social and industrial capabilities. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. 5. The RO should arrange for VA orthopedic and ophthalmologic examinations to determine the current nature and extent of the veteran's service-connected right ankle and eye disabilities. The manifestations of the service-connected right ankle disability should be distinguished, to the extent possible, from the post service ankle fracture. The examiners should be requested to comment on the impact of the service- connected disabilities on the veteran's employability. All indicated studies should be done. It is imperative that the claims folder and a copy of this REMAND be provided to the examining physicians for review prior to their examinations. 6. Then, the RO, cognizant of the veteran's responses to paragraph 3 above, should undertake any other indicated development, including any additional indicated medical examinations, and readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case on all issues in appellate status, to include all pertinent laws and regulations, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to reply. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion as to any ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. ROBERT E. SULLIVAN 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) (1994).