BVA9505984 DOCKET NO. 93-10 884 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance or on housebound status. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. A. Dowdell, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1971 to April 1973. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a September 1992 rating decision from the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO), which denied special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance or on housebound status. REMAND The veteran asserts that his disabilities, in combination, are so severe that he must remain housebound and he is in need of aid and attendance of another person. The Board believes that additional development of the record should be accomplished prior to further appellate review of this case. In reviewing the documents of record, the Board observes that, although Department of Veterans Affairs (VA ) examinations were performed in July 1992, the examinations were not adequate to evaluate the veteran's service-connected right ear hearing loss disability and the veteran's nonservice-connected left ear hearing loss disability and acquired psychiatric disorder. In addition, the September 1992 rating decision from the St. Petersburg, Florida, RO failed to identify each of the veteran's nonservice-connected medical disorders and assign a specific disability percentage. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that, in developing pending claims, the VA must apply all pertinent regulations. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.351, and 3.352 (1994). Each of the veteran's nonservice- connected medical disorders must be separately rated, based on the evidence of record, after which a combined rating is calculated. See Abernathy v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 391 (1992), and Brown v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 444 (1992). We note that the Court has held that the duty of the VA to assist veterans in the development of facts pertinent to their claims, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994), as set forth by the Court in Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990), requires that the VA accomplish additional development of the record, to include obtaining the report of an adequate VA examination, if it finds that the record currently before it is inadequate. To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the regional office (RO) for the following development: 1. The RO should request the veteran be afforded a general medical examination, an examination for housebound status or permanent need for regular aid and attendance, and examinations by specialists in audiology, neurology, and psychiatry in order to determine the nature and extent of all disabilities present. The examiners should review the claims folder prior to the examinations. All indicated tests should be conducted and all examinations should contain diagnoses. Each specialist should express an opinion as to what effect the disabilities found have on the veteran's ability to care for his personal daily needs, such as feeding, bathing, and dressing himself and protecting himself from dangers in his environment, without the regular aid and attendance of another; and whether the veteran is confined to his dwelling and whether this confinement will continue during his lifetime. In addition, each examiner should state whether the veteran's disabilities are subject to improvement through appropriate treatment. The factors upon which the opinions are based must be set forth. The examination reports should be legibly written or typed. 2. The RO should schedule a social and industrial survey to determine the veteran's housebound status or permanent need for regular aid and attendance. 3. The RO must identify and rate all of the veteran's current disabilities. Thereafter, it must determine the combined evaluations for all those disabilities, appropriately grouped as either service connected or nonservice connected. 4. Following completion of the above, the RO should again review the veteran's claims and determine whether entitlement to special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance or on housebound status can now be granted. 5. If any decision remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case which includes a recitation of the percentage rating for each diagnosed disability; which cites the appropriate diagnostic codes and provides a discussion of their applicability to the veteran's disability; and which discusses the application of the two standards, aid and attendance and housebound status under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1502, 1521 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.351, 3.352(a) (1994), by which special monthly pension benefits may be assigned. The veteran and his representative should then be given a reasonable period of time within which to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) LAWRENCE M. 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).