BVA9500445 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 286     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for chronic low back pain
with post operative residuals of a hemilaminectomy and diskectomy
at the L4-L5 level on the left, currently rated as 40 percent
disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Auer, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from November 1972 to August
1974.

This appeal arises from a rating decision of October 1989 from
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Wichita, Kansas,
Regional Office (RO).  In that decision, entitlement to an
increased evaluation for chronic low back pain with post
operative residuals of a hemilaminectomy and diskectomy at the
L4-L5 level on the left was denied.

A review of the claims file shows that the veteran submitted a
statement dated September 15, 1989, in which he referred to a
letter he allegedly received from the RO, dated September 8,
1989.  The referenced letter referred to his reopened claim.  The
claims file does not contain a copy of a letter from the RO to
the veteran dated September 8, 1989.

Additionally, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) notes that
the veteran has not received a VA examination for his service-
connected back disorder for many years.  VA has a duty to assist
the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim
under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993).  The United States Court of
Veterans Appeals has held that fulfillment of the VA's duty to
assist the veteran includes providing him with a thorough and
contemporaneous medical examination.  Littke v. Derwinski,
1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990).

The Board finds that the actions ordered below are
warranted even though the development will further delay
the entry of a final decision in this appeal.  Accordingly,
the claim is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
ask him to furnish the names and addresses
of all medical personnel and facilities
from whom he has received treatment for the
disability at issue since May 1988.  After
obtaining the necessary authorization from
the veteran, the RO should obtain available
records from the named sources.

2.  The RO should obtain any available
treatment records from the VA hospitals or
medical centers where the veteran has
received treatment since October 1989.

3.  A VA orthopedic examination should be
arranged to determine the extent and
severity of the veteran's low back
disorder.  The examination should be
conducted in accordance with the VA
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations (1985).  The examiner should
set forth detailed findings regarding
limitation of motion and any other
functional loss caused by the low back
disorder.  Active and passive range of
motion, in terms of degrees, with a
comparison of the opposite side should be
reported.  The presence or absence of
painful motion must be reported.  The
examiner should also describe any
functional loss the veteran may experience
as a result of pain, weakness or
fatigability.  The claims folder, or copies
of all pertinent records, should be made
available to the examiner for  review.

4.  The RO should determine whether a
letter, dated September 8, 1989, and
referring to a reopened claim, was sent to
the veteran.  If so, a copy of that letter
should be associated with the veteran's
claims file.

The RO should then review the veteran's claims in light of all
the evidence and applicable legal criteria.  If his claim remains
denied, the veteran and his representative should be provided
with a supplemental statement of the case that includes any
additional pertinent law and regulations and a full discussion of
the evidence in his case.  The appropriate response time should
be allowed.  The case should be returned to the Board, if in
order, after compliance with all regulatory appellate procedures.
No action is required of the veteran until he is so informed.
The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate decision
warranted in this case, pending completion of the requested
development.

          ALBERT D. TUTERA
          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 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).