BVA9502993 DOCKET NO. 93-12 898 ) 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. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1944 to January 1946. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of January 1992 from the St. Petersburg, Florida, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance and housebound benefits. In January 1993, the RO granted entitlement to housebound benefits, but confirmed and continued the denial of aid and attendance benefits. REMAND Additional medical evidence received directly at the Board after the most recent rating decision was not considered by the RO. This consists of a VA report of hospitalization dated from April to May 1993, and a June 1993 VA examination for housebound status or need for regular aid and attendance, VA Form 21-2680. The veteran has not waived his right to have this evidence initially considered by the RO. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). Consequently, the RO must be given an opportunity to consider this evidence. The veteran also submitted two VA Forms 21-4142, indicating treatment at Winter Haven Hospital, 200-Avenue F., N.E., Winter Haven, Florida, 33881, in May 1993, and by William Augspurger, 306 Pk Avenue, Auburndale, Florida, 33823, from May to June 1993. In a February 1994 statement, the veteran indicated that he recently had been seen for evaluation at the Tampa, Florida, VA Hospital. There is also a September 1992 statement from that facility indicating that the veteran was receiving outpatient treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at that time. This evidence has not been obtained. In the notice of disagreement and substantive appeal, the veteran indicated that his heart disorder, hypertension and emphysema were increasing in severity and that he may be scheduled for surgery. In the substantive appeal he also indicated that his disabilities include hearing loss. Under the present circumstances, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain copies of all VA inpatient and outpatient records showing treatment and/or surgery, dated from August 1992 to the present, at the Tampa, Florida, VA Hospital. Any evidence obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should obtain from the veteran the names and address of all medical care providers, other than VA, who have provided treatment related to his pending claim. After securing any necessary releases, the RO should obtain these treatment records. The RO should also request copies of records from Winter Haven Hospital, 200-Avenue F., N.E., Winter Haven, Florida, 33881, in May 1993, and by William Augspurger, 306 Pk Avenue, Auburndale, Florida, 33823, from May to June 1993. Any evidence obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 3. The RO should schedule the veteran for a comprehensive medical examination for the purpose of determining his need for regular aid and attendance. The scope of the examination, by one or several contributing physicians, should be broad enough to cover all diseases, injuries, and residuals conditions which are suggested by the veteran's complaints, symptoms or findings at the time of the examination. All complaints or symptoms having a medical cause should be covered by a definite diagnosis. All indicated tests and studies should be performed and reported in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The claims folder should be made available and reviewed by the examiner(s) prior to the examination of the veteran. The examiner(s) may wish to utilize VA Form 21- 2680, indicating whether the veteran is in need of the regular aid and attendance of another or substantially confined to his home as the result of disabilities. 4. Thereafter, the RO should reevaluate the veteran's claim in light of the additional evidence. A new rating decision should be prepared to ensure that each of the veteran's disabilities has been assigned a rating under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The RO should then determine whether the veteran meets the criteria for increased pension benefits based on the need for the regular aid and attendance of another person. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent evidence, and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision. They should then be afforded the applicable time period to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. GARY L. GICK Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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 deter- mination. 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) (1993).