BVA9501240 
DOCKET NO.  92-06 063     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased rating for accrued benefit
purposes for residuals of a fracture of T-12, currently evaluated
as 10 percent disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased rating for accrued benefit
purposes for postoperative cholecystectomy, currently evaluated
as 10 percent disabling.

3.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for accrued benefit
purposes for anxiety reaction.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the
veteran's death.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

James R. Siegel, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from April 1942 to November
1943, and died in January 1991.  The appellant is his widow.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from decisions from the Regional Office (RO).
By rating actions of April l991, the RO denied the appellant's
claims of entitlement to increased evaluations, on an accrued
basis, for the veteran's service-connected disabilities, and for
service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The veteran submitted a claim for an increased rating for his
service-connected disabilities in October 1990.  When he was
examined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in December
1991, he reported that he was being treated by Elias Chediak,
M.D., and by Dr. Gravino.  Based on the findings of the VA
examination, the RO by rating decision dated in February 1991,
denied his claim.  This was based on the conclusion that his
psychiatric problems were attributable to dementia.  The
appellant subsequently filed a claim for accrued benefits.

The death certificate shows that he died in January 1991 of renal
failure due to sepsis and a urinary tract infection.  It was
noted that he died in Lawrence Memorial Hospital.  However,
neither the private physicians' records, nor the terminal
hospital report have been obtained.

At the time of the veteran's death, service connection was in
effect for fracture of T-12, rated as 10 percent disabling;
postoperative cholecystectomy, with scar, evaluated as 10 percent
disabling; and for anxiety reaction, rated as noncompensable.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that
additional development of the record is required.  Accordingly,
the case is REMANDED to the RO for action as follows:

1.  The RO should contact the appellant and
request that he furnish the names,
addresses, and dates of treatment of all
medical providers from whom the veteran had
received treatment for his service-connected
disabilities since 1990.  She should execute
the proper authorization forms for release
of this information.

2.  Thereafter, the RO should seek to obtain
copies of all treatment records referred to
by the appellant, including the records of
Dr. Chediak (601 Missouri, Lawrence, Kansas
66044), and Dr. Gravino (24th and Iowa,
Lawrence, Kansas 66946).

3.  Thereafter, the RO should have the
veteran's claims folder reviewed by a
specialist in psychiatry, if available.  The
psychiatrist should be requested to furnish
an opinion concerning whether it is at least
as likely as not that the veteran's
psychiatric symptoms prior to his death were
the result of his service-connected
psychiatric disorder, as opposed to any
other cause.  If the symptoms are
attributable to the service-connected
disorder, the examiner is requested to
provide a Global Assessment of Functioning
(GAF) Score indicating the degree of
impairment produced by the service connected
disorder under the American Psychiatric
Association, Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition
Revised (1987).  (DSM-IIIR)  In order to
assist the RO and the Board to comply with
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (1993), it
is requested that the examiner incorporate
in the report the definition of what the GAF
Score means under DSM-IIIR.  The claim
folder and a copy of this remand must be
made available to the examiner for review in
conjunction with the examination.

Following completion of the above, the RO should review the
evidence and determine whether the appellant's claim may now be
granted.  If not, she and her representative should be furnished
an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and the case
should then be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration.

          RICHARD B. FRANK
          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).