BVA9500892 DOCKET NO. 93-07 111 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUES Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD John J. Crowley, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1978 to November 1978 and from January 1974 to December 1979. He was thereafter a member of the California Army National Guard from June 1982 to June 1985. This matter is currently before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). At a hearing in December 1993, the veteran's representative raised the issue of entitlement to non-service connected pension benefits. This matter is referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND Service medical records reveal that the veteran was seen for low back strain in January 1976 and for psychiatric symptoms on several occasions in 1978 and 1979. In April 1979 anxiety neurosis was noted. Post service medical evidence includes a January 1991 psychological evaluation performed by Kamil Bahou, M.D., and Richard H. Landess, Ph.D. This evaluation resulted in a diagnosis of depressive disorder not otherwise specified, with anxiety features. It was felt that the veteran's psychiatric problems were due to work pressures and harassment he sustained while working for Andresen Typographics from May to November 1990. He was hospitalized at a VA facility during August and September 1991 for schizophrenia. The hospital summary indicates that his symptoms were related to active military service during 1984. The record indicates that the veteran received treatment during 1984 at the VA Wadsworth Hospital Center. In view of the evidence of record, including the veteran's evidentiary assertions that must be presumed to be true for purposes of determining whether his claims are well grounded, the Board finds that his claims are plausible and thus well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). VA has a duty to assist a veteran in the development of facts pertinent to well-grounded claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). The United States Court of Veteran's Appeal (Court) has held that the duty to assist includes the duty to obtain pertinent records and to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, including examinations by specialists when indicated. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). It appears from the veteran's statements that he is alleging he also injured his back in a jeep accident during his National Guard service. It also appears that additional records are available, including the veteran's complete service medical records from his National Guard service, Social Security records and records associated with a workers' compensation claim. Where the record before the Board is inadequate to render a fully informed decision, a REMAND to the RO is required in order to fulfill the statutory duty to assist. Ascherl v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 371, 378 (1993). In view of the state of the record, further development, as specified below, is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain verification of the veteran's dates of active duty for training with the California Army National Guard. The RO should also obtain all medical records compiled in conjunction with the veteran's service with the California Army National Guard. 2. The RO should obtain and associate with the claims folder complete VA medical records for the veteran from December 1979 to the present, including records of all treatment afforded the veteran at the Wadsworth Hospital Center. 3. The RO should request the veteran to identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers who may possess additional records pertinent to his claims. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of those treatment records identified by the veteran which have not been previously secured. 4. The veteran should be requested to indicate whether he has applied for workers' compensation benefits. With authorization from the veteran, the RO should obtain from any workers' compensation authority a copy of any disability determination made and a copy of the medical records upon which the award was based. 5. The RO should obtain from the Social Security Administration a copy of any disability determination it has made for the veteran and copies of the medical records upon which any such determination was based. 6. The RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo a psychiatric examination to determine the nature, extent and etiology of any psychiatric impairment. The exam- iner should specifically address whether any acquired psychiatric impairment found is related to symptoms reported during the veteran's active service. The examiner should specifically comment on whether it is as likely as not that a chronic acquired psychiatric disability began during the veteran's military service. All indicated studies should be performed. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be explained. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination of the veteran. 7. The RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo an orthopedic examination to determine the nature, extent and etiology of any back pathology. The examiner should specifically address whether any back impairment found is related to the veteran's service with the Air Force or his Army National Guard service. The examiner should specifically comment on whether it is as likely as not that any back pathology found is due to or the result of the veteran's military service. All indicated studies should be performed. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be explained. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination of the veteran. 8. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claims. If any new issue is not resolved to the veteran's satisfaction, the RO should notify the veteran and his representative of the necessity of filing a notice of disagreement with regard to any new issue they wish the Board to consider. If the issues currently on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case. Additionally, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case with regard to any new issue for which a notice of disagreement is filed. The veteran and his representative should be provided an opportunity to respond and they should be notified that a substantive appeal must be filed with regard to any new issue. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO. GARY L. GICK 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 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 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).