BVA9504907 DOCKET NO. 93-14 447 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability manifested by numbness, pain and weakness. 4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for extensor digitorum longus tendinitis with metatarsalgia of the left foot. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. O'Brien, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from January 1990 to January 1991. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. The veteran's claims were appealed and received at the Board in July 1993. Since that time, additional evidence in the form of VA medical records has been received. This additional evidence was received without a waiver of the veteran's right to have that evidence initially considered by the RO. Any pertinent evidence submitted by the veteran or representative which is accepted by the Board must be referred to the RO for review in preparation of a supplemental statement of the case, unless the procedural rights are waived by the appellant. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1993). The veteran has not waived his procedural rights and, in view of other necessary development described below, this claim will be returned to the RO for consideration of the evidence submitted directly to the Board. The evidence which has recently been submitted consists primarily of records pertaining to treatment at the VA Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona. In a statement received in December 1994, the veteran stated that he was seeing podiatrists at that facility on a regular basis. The rating examinations the veteran has been accorded by VA in 1992 and 1993 were concerned primarily with evaluation of the veteran's service-connected left foot disorder. Little attention was devoted on the remainder of the left lower extremity, the focus of the veteran's claims. In view of the foregoing, the Board is persuaded that additional development is desirable and the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and obtain the names, addresses, approximate dates and locations of all treatment received for any of his claimed disorders since his discharge from service. After obtaining the necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should obtain available records from the named sources. The VA Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, should be contacted and asked to provide the complete clinical records regarding treatment of the veteran since November 1994. 2. A VA orthopedic examination should be arranged to determine the extent and severity of the veteran's service-connected left foot disorder and any other disability involving the left lower extremity. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (1985). The examination should set forth detailed findings regarding limitation of motion and any other functional loss caused by the tendinitis with metatarsalgia of the left foot. The examiner should also describe any functional loss the veteran may experience as a result of pain, weakness, or fatigability. Also, the examiner is asked to express an opinion as to whether there is a medical or causal relationship between the service-connected left foot disorder and any disability found involving the left lower extremity. The claims folder, or copies of all pertinent records, should be made available to the examiner for review. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claims, taking into consideration all the evidence of record. Unless the benefits sought are granted to the veteran's satisfaction, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued, and he and his representative should be provided the applicable time period in which to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further 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. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).