BVA9503094 DOCKET NO. 93-09 705 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to a total evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual unemployability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple Heart ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ronald R. Bosch, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1948 to June 1951. This appeal arose from a September 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. The RO affirmed the evaluations for service- connected disabilities, and denied entitlement to special monthly compensation for loss of use of the left foot and a total disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual unemployability. In October 1992 the veteran filed a notice of disagreement with that part of the above RO determination denying entitlement to a total disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual unemployability. The case has been forwarded to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) for appellate review of the issue of entitlement to a total disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual unemployability, the only issue prepared and certified for appellate review. REMAND Service connection has been granted for degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, postoperative, evaluated as 60 percent disabling; and residuals of a gunshot wound of the left leg with impairment of muscle group XI, evaluated as 30 percent disabling. The combined schedular evaluation is 70 percent. A review of the claims file discloses that in earlier dated statements, the veteran has reported chronic bilateral hip symptomatology which he has attributed to his service-connected disabilities. He specifically requested service connection for a bilateral hip disorder as secondary to his service-connected disabilities in May 1991. No action was taken on this claim. On his March 1993 appeal statement to the Board, the claimant requested service connection for coronary artery disease as secondary to his service-connected degenerative disc disease. No action was taken on this claim, although the Board points out there is a question whether this claim is well grounded. The Board observes that entitlement to service connection for arteriosclerotic heart disease was previously denied by the Board in a decision issued in March 1989. In an April 1993 statement on behalf of the appellant, the representative at the RO requested consideration of service connection for a right leg disorder as secondary to service- connected disabilities. No action was taken on this claim. It was reiterated that the veteran had indeed suffered the loss of use of his left foot thereby warranting entitlement to special monthly compensation. The Board construes this statement as a notice of disagreement with that part of the RO September 1992 rating decision denying entitlement to special monthly compensation for loss of use of the left foot. The Board's review of the evidence of record discloses that sensory radiculopathy of the right lower extremity was associated with service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine when the appellant was examined by VA in January 1984. A left footdrop has been repeatedly identified on earlier dated medical reports on file from VA and non-VA health care professionals. The issues of entitlement to service connection for disabilities as secondary to service-connected disabilities are of course inextricably intertwined with the prepared and certified issue of entitlement to a total disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual unemployability. With respect to the issue of entitlement to a total disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual unemployability, the Board observes the veteran's VA Vocational Rehabilitation folder has not been associated with the claims file. On an earlier dated application for pension benefits, the appellant indicated that he did not know if he would be entitled to Social Security Disability Benefits. An inquiry has not been made as to whether the veteran is a recipient of such benefits. The veteran has been receiving regular treatment for his service- connected disabilities at the local VA medical facility. The complete and most recently dated records pertaining to such treatment are not on file. Satisfactory contemporaneous examinations to determine whether the veteran has developed any other disorders as claimed on appeal as secondary to his service connected disabilities have not been conducted. Accordingly, to ensure compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should request and associate with the claims file photocopies of the complete records pertaining to the veteran's treatment at the VA Medical Centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Decatur, Georgia, not previously secured. 2. The veteran's VA Vocational Rehabilitation folder should be obtained and associated with the claims file. 3. The RO should ascertain from the veteran whether he is receiving Social Security Disability Benefits. If so, the RO should request photocopies of all medical records on which such award of benefits was predicated. 4. The RO should dtermine whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, adjudicate the issues of service connection for bilateral hip and right leg disorders as secondary to service-connected disabilities; and develop for appeal, by providing a statement of the case, the issue of entitlement to special monthly compensation for loss of use of the left foot. 5. The veteran should be scheduled for orthopedic, and neurologic examinations by VA to determine the nature and extent of his service-connected postoperative degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 and gunshot wound residuals of the left leg with impairment of muscle group XI. The examiners should determine whether a bilateral hip disability and disability of the right leg are present, and if so, whether it is at least as likely as not that either or all are secondary to the service connected disability of the low back and left lower extremity. The examiners are to include findings in their report to reflect how much function the veteran has, if any, in his left foot. The examiners should provide an opinion as to the impact of the veteran's service- connected disability or disabilities on the veteran's ability to function in the work place. The examinations are to be conducted in accordance with the diagnostic procedures outlined in Chapters 2, 6, and 13 of the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All further necessary studies should be accomplished. Any opinion(s) expressed should be accompanied by a complete rationale. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiners prior to their examinations. If the benefits requested on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, or if he should timely file a notice of disagreement as to any other matter, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case for all issues in appellate status. A reasonable period of time for a response should be afforded. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO. BRUCE KANNEE 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).