BVA9508445 DOCKET NO. 93-07 166 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a back disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for drug dependency. 3. Entitlement to service connection for depression. 4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a fracture of the right middle finger. 5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite of the hands. 6. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet. 7. Entitlement to service connection for bronchitis. 8. Entitlement to an increased rating for migraine headaches, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 9. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a right knee disability. 10. Entitlement to restoration of a 60 percent evaluation for Meniere's disease. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Milo H. Hawley, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from June 1972 to June 1975 and from April 1980 to April 1985. By rating decision in November 1978, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota (RO), denied service connection for a back condition. The veteran was notified of that denial, and initiated an appeal. A statement of the case was issued which informed him that he must file a substantive appeal if he intended to complete his appeal. A substantive appeal was not received and the November 1978 rating decision became final. Subsequent thereto, the veteran has submitted additional evidence in an attempt to reopen his claim for service connection for a back disability. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from March and June 1989, and December 1992 rating decisions by the RO. The March 1989 rating decision granted service connection for hearing loss on the left and assigned a noncompensable evaluation. The veteran disagreed with that decision, among others, and a statement of the case was issued. The veteran filed a substantive appeal in which he mentioned having been diagnosed as having Meniere's disease. A December 1989 rating decision granted service connection for Meniere's disease and merged the hearing loss on the left with that disability, assigning a 60 percent evaluation. In January 1992, a rating decision proposed to reduce the evaluation for Meniere's disease to 30 percent. That reduction was accomplished by rating action in December 1992. The issue of entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for hearing loss on the left has been merged into the issue of restoration of a 60 percent evaluation for Meniere's disease. REMAND It is contended that the veteran had back trouble during his first period of active service, and that his drug dependency was due to his back disability. It is also asserted that his depression is secondary to his drug dependency. It is further contended that the veteran experienced frostbite of the hands and feet during service, as well as sustaining a fracture of the right middle finger. It is further asserted that the veteran's migraine headaches and right knee disability are more disabling than currently evaluated. It is contended that the veteran has migraines at least once every month, and that X-rays reveal pathology of the right knee, which, when considered with the veteran's complaints of pain, would warrant a 10 percent evaluation under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 (1993). It is also contended that the veteran's Meniere's disease has not improved, and that the 60 percent evaluation should be restored. It is asserted that the veteran has had to reduce the amount of hours he works in order to control the symptoms of this disability. In reviewing the record, this panel of the Board notes that the veteran's representative has raised the issue of service connection for Meniere's disease of the right ear. This appears to be inextricably intertwined with the issue of an increased rating for Meniere's disease of the left ear. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (COVA) has indicated that matters which are inextricably intertwined must be considered in the same decision, rather than separately, to prevent piecemeal adjudication. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that this case must be REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The veteran should be afforded updated neurologic and orthopedic examinations to determine the extent and severity of Meniere's disease, migraine headaches, and residuals of a right knee injury. The examiner's should have access to the claims folder to review the history of the disabilities. The neurologic examiner should determine whether there is Meniere's disease of the right ear, and, if so, express an opinion as to whether it is related to the Meniere's disease on the left. 2. By formal rating action, the RO should consider the matter of service connection for Meniere's disease of the right ear. When the above development has been completed, the case should again be reviewed by the originating agency. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded a reasonable 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 unless he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND it to obtain additional evidence, afford the veteran all due process of law, and no inference should be drawn from it regarding the final disposition of the claim. E. W. SEERY 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) (1994).