BVA9505677 DOCKET NO. 93-13 209 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a left leg disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Dutzman, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1942 to November 1945. This matter arises from a December 1991 rating decision in which the regional office (RO) granted service connection but denied a compensable rating for a left leg condition described as a scar on the anterior portion of the left leg. The grant of service connection was based on service medical records showing an injury to the left leg and the examination for separation from service showing a small scar on the anterior left leg. REMAND In the December 1991 rating decision, entitlement to service connection was granted for a left leg condition characterized as a small scar on the anterior left leg under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805 (1994). However, in the award letter mailed in January of 1992, the RO informed the veteran only that he was granted service connection for a "left leg condition." In the statement of the case, dated in August of 1992, the issue was listed as entitlement to an increased rating for a "left leg condition." In the decision section, the disability was listed as a left leg scar. At a November 1992 hearing before a hearing officer at the RO, the issue was stated to be entitlement to an increased evaluation for a service-connected "left leg condition." At the hearing on appeal, the veteran testified that he should be granted an increased rating on the basis of his left leg varicose veins. The veteran contended that he had varicose veins as a result of the injury to his left leg in service. The veteran also reported pain in the scar site. No medical examination has been conducted to evaluate the scar. In addition, no other evidence is currently present in the claims folders which would enable the Board of Veterans Appeals' (Board) to properly evaluate any disability arising from the veteran's scar. The veteran further testified that he had received treatment for his varicose veins from a Dr. Aaron Hershowitz. While the file contains a letter indicating treatment by a Dr. Aaron Herschfus, no treatment records from a Dr. Hershowitz, or Dr. Herschfus, are in the claims folders. In a November 1992 decision, the hearing officer found that the veteran was not entitled to a compensable rating for his "left leg condition." The decision addressed both the veteran's varicose veins and his leg scar. The hearing officer stated that the evidence indicated no causal or etiological relationship between the veteran's left calf varicose veins and left leg injury in service. However, the RO has not formally adjudicated the claim of entitlement to service connection for varicose veins of the left leg. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) must develop all issues which are reasonably raised from a liberal reading of the entire record, where these issues are inextricably intertwined with the issues on appeal. Myers v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 127 (1991); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991). The veteran's claim for service connection for left leg varicose veins is inextricably intertwined with his claim for an increased rating for residual disability of a left leg injury. In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of the Board that this case should be REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he furnish information as to any treatment he has received for a left leg disability, including varicose veins, since service. The RO should then take all necessary steps to obtain any medical records not already of record, including treatment records from Dr. Hershowitz, J. Aaron Herschfus, M.D., and the VA outpatient clinic on Causeway Street, at the West Roxbury VA Medical Center, and the Brockton VA Medical Center. 2. The veteran should be afforded specialized VA vascular and dermatology examinations in order to identify all residuals of his in-service left leg injury. In order that the examiners may have an accurate history, the claims folder should be made available to the examiners prior to the examinations. The vascular specialist should specifically express an opinion as to whether the veteran's left leg varicose veins are a residual of his injury in service. Any indicated testing should be conducted. 3. The RO should then adjudicate the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for varicose veins of the left leg. Notice of the determination should be provided to the veteran and his representative. If after completion of the requested development, the benefits sought have not been granted, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case as to all issues for which a timely notice of disagreement has been received, and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Thereafter, following compliance with all other procedures relative to the processing of appeals, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration of any issue for which a valid substantive appeal has been submitted. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) U. R. POWELL 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).