BVA9508350 DOCKET NO. 90-19 757 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Roger W. Rutherford, Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. M. Yonemoto, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1951 to March 1954. In September 1993, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the request to reopen a claim for service connection for hearing loss in the left ear, increased ratings for right ear hearing loss and otitis media, and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. The Board awarded an increased rating for vertigo. The veteran appealed to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court). In December 1994, the Court granted a joint motion to remand one issue and dismiss the remaining four issues. That portion of the Board's decision denying a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities was vacated and the issue was remanded. In the joint motion, the issue of entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes was raised. Inasmuch as this matter is not inextricably intertwined with the issue on appeal, the Board refers such matter to the regional office (RO) for appropriate action. REMAND In March 1990, L. R. March, M.D., reported that the veteran had been disabled primarily for vertigo and had a number of other ailments which included chronic back pain, total hearing loss in the right ear, peptic ulcer disease and emphysema, and that his disabling vertigo was the most handicapping and distressing of all these problems. In August 1991, the physician expressed the opinion that the veteran was severely handicapped by the vertigo. A review of the claims folder discloses that Dr. March's clinical records referable to the veteran are not on file. Additionally, it is noted that service connection is in effect for otitis media of the right ear, hearing loss in the right ear, and vertigo. The Board observes that the veteran underwent several audiometric studies of his hearing condition, and special ear, nose and throat examinations. Nevertheless, the record does not contain any opinion with respect to the impact of the service-connected disabilities on the veteran's ability to work. In Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 294, 297 (1995), the Court found that the Board had a duty to supplement the record by obtaining an examination which included an opinion on what effect the service-connected disability had on the ability to work. In an August 1991 statement, the veteran reported that he stopped working as a mechanic because of vertigo. His former employer, Virginia Department of Highways, was not yet contacted to provide a supporting document. In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain and associate with the claims folder copies of all clinical records, not already on file, showing treatment the veteran received for his service-connected disabilities. These records would generally be from May 1992, but an attempt should also be made to include as part of the claims folder copies of the clinical records of Dr. L. March that pertain to the veteran. The veteran should be requested to assist in this matter. 2. The RO should contact the veteran's last employer, Virginia Department of Highways, Tazewell, VA 24630, in order to obtain a statement regarding the reasons for the veteran's termination of employment in 1983. 3. The RO should schedule a VA ear, nose and throat examination in order to determine the severity and extent of his service-connected otitis media, hearing loss and vertigo. The examination must be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated tests must be conducted. The claims folder must be available to and reviewed by, the examiner prior to the requested examination. The examiner should also be requested to express an opinion as to the effects of the service-connected otitis media, hearing loss and vertigo on the veteran's working ability. The complete rationale of any opinion expressed must be provided. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure all of the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed to the extent possible. If any development is incomplete, including if the requested examination does not include all test reports, special studies or opinions requested, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. When the above development is completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran, he and his attorney should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying information. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice. M. SABULSKY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 State. 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).