BVA9502128 
DOCKET NO.  93-12 725     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg,
Florida

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of a shell
fragment wound to the left buttock, currently rated as 20 percent
disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Sandra L. Smith, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from January 1968 to December
1969.  This appeal is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) from a May 1991 rating decision of the Regional Office
(RO) which denied an increased evaluation for residuals of a
shell fragment wound of the left buttock.  The case is now ready
for appellate review.

REMAND

The veteran and his representative contend that a disability
evaluation, higher than the 20 percent currently assigned, is
warranted for the service-connected residuals of a shell fragment
wound to the left buttock.  They assert that a retained metallic
fragment impinges on the sciatic nerve when the veteran sits
which causes increased pain which radiates down the veteran's
left leg.  In support of their assertion they point to the
December 1990  findings of a neurologist contained in the
veteran's VA outpatient treatment records.

The Board notes that it is not clear whether the veteran was
examined by a neurologist at the VA medical examination in May
1991.  The examining physician did consider the possibility of
sciatic nerve involvement.  Based on a review of a November 1990
x-ray, the examiner opined that the metallic "fragment [was] not
close to the site of the sciatic nerve course".

The veteran's representative has requested that the case be
remanded so that the veteran might be examined by a neurology
specialist.  The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in
developing pertinent information relating to his claim pursuant
to 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  The Court of Veterans
Appeals (the Court) has held that the duty to assist also
includes providing a thorough and contemporaneous medical
examination, which takes into account prior medical evaluations
and treatment.  Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991).  The
Court has also held that when the Board concludes the medical
evidence of record is insufficient it may supplement the record
by ordering a medical examination.  Colvin v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 171 (1991).

In light of the conflicting medical opinions of record, the Board
has determined that the veteran should be afforded another VA
examination.  Thus, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following actions:

1.  The RO should obtain and associate with
the claims folder all of the veteran's VA
medical records, including inpatient and
outpatient clinic records, from December
1990 to the present.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
examination by a neurology specialist to
determine the nature and severity of any
neurologic pathology in the left buttock
and leg.  Subjective complaints and
objective findings should be legibly
recorded in detail.  Any and all indicated
tests and studies should also be conducted.
The examiner should also express an opinion
as to whether the veteran's service-
connected shell fragment residuals involve
the sciatic nerve.  The claims folder must
be made available for review by the medical
examiner prior to the examination to
facilitate study of this case.

If the claim remains denied, the veteran and his representative
should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and they
should be afforded the appropriate period of time within which to
respond thereto.  Then, if otherwise in order, the case should be
returned to the Board for further appellate consideration.  No
action is required of the veteran until he is notified.

The Board intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to
the ultimate disposition warranted in this case, pending
completion of the requested development.

          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).