BVA9506260 DOCKET NO. 93-17 105 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for malaria residuals. WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert B. Swanson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1941 to December 1945. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 1993 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey. The Board is cognizant of the veteran's claim for service connection for a skin condition, which he asserted during an August 1993 hearing. Since the claim was not adjudicated by the RO and certified for appeal, the claim is referred to the RO for the appropriate action. REMAND The veteran is seeking a compensable rating for his malaria residuals. He contends that a compensable rating should be granted because he has had periodic malaria attacks since he first contracted the disease in service. After reviewing the record on appeal, the Board finds that additional development is necessary to assist in the resolution of the appealed issue. The Board recently obtained a medical opinion from a VA physician. In the opinion, the physician indicated that in order to confirm or exclude malaria as the cause of the veteran's symptomatology, blood smears should be obtained at least twice a day on successive days when the veteran reports an acute episode. He further related that the veteran's medical history indicated that the veteran has only had one blood smear per each reported exacerbation. Another diagnostic tool was also suggested as a possible alternative. Further medical evaluation is, therefore, indicated. Since additional development is indicated by the record on appeal, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the East Orange, New Jersey, VA medical facility, and request copies of all outpatient and hospital treatment records, if any, that relate to the veteran since July 1992. 2. The RO should refer the veteran's claims folder to the most appropriate VA medical facility for review of the opinion of December 15, 1994 by Dr. Jose G. Montoya. That opinion should be reviewed by an appropriate specialist to determine the most appropriate method available for testing the veteran for malaria, consistent with the suggestions of Dr. Montoya. Thereafter, the VAMC should schedule the testing deemed necessary and any examinations deemed necessary in conjunction with the testing. All clinical and laboratory findings should be reported in detail. 3. After all examinations and studies have been completed, the RO should review the veteran's claim. If the determination is unfavorable to the veteran, a supplemental statement of the case should be sent to the veteran. The supplemental statement of the case should set forth the evidence added to the record since the March 1993 statement of the case, any legal authority relied upon that was not previously cited, the decision, and the bases for the decision. After the supplemental statement of the case is sent, the veteran should be given the appropriate time in which to respond. Thereafter, subject to appellate procedures, the case should be returned, if appropriate, to the Board for further consideration. The purpose of this REMAND is to secure clarifying data. No action is required by the veteran until he receives further notice. ROBERT D. PHILIPP 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).