BVA9507127 
DOCKET NO.  93-12 182     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles,
California

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for urethritis.

2.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for lumbosacral
strain.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

N. W. Fabian, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from August 1948 to June 1951.

The veteran claims that his service-connected urethritis and
lumbosacral strain have gotten worse.  The veteran further
contends that lumbosacral strain caused him to have degenerative
joint disease of the spine and that urethritis caused him to
develop prostate problems.  The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) Regional Office (RO) denied the veteran's claim for
compensable evaluations for urethritis and lumbosacral strain on
the basis of VA outpatient treatment notes and hospital
summaries.  In accordance with the Court of Veterans Appeals
decision in Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992), the
veteran's assertion that his condition has gotten worse
constitutes a sufficient basis for establishing a well-grounded
claim.  The VA is obligated, therefore, to assist the veteran in
the development of his claim.  As the Court held in the Proscelle
decision, this obligation requires that the veteran be afforded a
VA examination.  To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the
appellant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the
case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should obtain the names and
addresses of all medical care providers,
both VA and private, inpatient and
outpatient, who treated the veteran for a
urinary or back disorder since July 1992.
After securing the necessary release, the
RO should obtain the complete records of
such treatment.  The records need not be
obtained if copies of the records are
already in file.

2.  The veteran should be afforded VA
orthopedic and urology examinations to
determine the nature, severity, and
etiology of any disorder of the lower back
or any disorder of the urinary system he
has.  The claims folder should be made
available to the examiners for review
before the examinations.  The examinations
should be conducted in accordance with the
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  The examinations should
include any diagnostic tests that the
examining physicians determine to be
appropriate.  The orthopedic examiner
should be asked to offer an opinion on
whether lumbosacral strain, which is
service-connected, is causally related to
any other disorder of the lower back that
the veteran has.  The physician conducting
the urology examination should be asked to
provide an opinion on whether urethritis,
which is service-connected, is causally
related to any disorders of the prostate
that the veteran has.

After the development requested above has been completed to the
extent possible, the RO should again review the record.  If any
benefit sought on appeal, for which a notice of disagreement has
been filed, remains denied, the appellant and representative
should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond.  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
should take no action until otherwise notified.

          GEORGE R. SENYK
          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).