BVA9500989 DOCKET NO. 93-07 277 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for residuals of a fracture of the fifth metatarsal of the left foot. 2. Entitlement to service connection for atrophy of the left calf. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.P. Reep, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from January 1955 to January 1959. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a January 1992 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which, in part, awarded service connection for residuals of a fracture of the fifth metatarsal of the left foot, and assigned a noncompensable rating. Also in that decision, the RO denied service connection for atrophy of the left calf and a back disorder. In April 1992, the RO received a notice of disagreement regarding an increased rating for the left foot disorder and service connection for atrophy of the left calf. In August 1992, the veteran testified before a hearing officer. There he added service connection for a back disorder as an appellate issue. In September 1992, the hearing officer issued a decision denying all three issues on appeal. The RO then issued a supplemental statement of the case reflecting all three issues. REMAND The veteran asserts that his service-connected left foot disorder, residuals of fracture of the fifth metatarsal, warrants a compensable rating. Further he maintains that as a result of improper healing of the fracture, he developed weakness and atrophy of the left leg, which later resulted in a back disorder, thus warranting a grant of service connection on a secondary basis. At the outset the Board notes that we have conducted a thorough review of the entire record, including the various submissions by the veteran. In pertinent part, we recognize the veteran's assertions that his December 1991 VA examination was cursory in nature. For that reason, his representative has requested, in February 1994 argument, that the case be remanded. We also note that, due to the passage of time involved in the appellate process, the December 1991 examination is no longer contemporaneous. It is noted that the record contains a December 1992 report of Phillip Speigel, M.D., which suggests, based in part on history provided by the veteran, that a causal relationship exists between the veteran's service-connected left foot disorder and atrophy of the left calf. In addition, medical evidence of record suggests some difficulties with the veteran's lower extremities that may be due to a nonservice-connected back disorder. The Board also notes that there is information in the claims folder which suggests that the veteran received medical treatment for the disorders at issue; in his December 1991 statement the veteran indicated that he had undergone therapy to strengthen his legs. Further development of the record in this case would be beneficial prior to appellate review. Consequently, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provided the names and addresses of all physicians or other medical care providers, both VA and private, who have treated him since military service for residuals of the left foot fracture, left leg atrophy or back symptoms. All records should be obtained and incorporated into the claims folder. Special attention is directed to obtaining the records of F.J. McClimans, D.O., who referred the veteran for an MRI in early 1992, for evaluation of back symptoms, reportedly following an injury at a gym. 2. When the above requested records have been assembled, the RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo a comprehensive orthopedic examination in part for the purpose of assessing the current status of his service-connected left foot disorder. The veteran should be examined by a physician who has not previously seen him. All appropriate testing should be conducted, and all pertinent findings reported. In addition, the examiner, after studying the claims folder, should provide an opinion as to whether the disabilities involving the veteran's back and left leg are causally related to his service-connected disorder, residuals of fracture of the fifth metatarsal, left foot. If not, the examiner should, to the extent possible, set forth the etiology of the left leg atrophy. It would be helpful to the Board if the examiner provided detailed reasoning to support his or her conclusions. The veteran's claims folder should be made available to the examiner(s) prior to any examination for use in study of the case. 3. The RO should then consider whether the veteran is entitled to the benefits sought on appeal. If any of those benefits remain denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which contains an explanation of the RO's latest deliberations and a recitation of the newly received evidence. The veteran and his representative should be afforded the opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of the case. Then the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The veteran need take no action until he is further notified by the RO. The purpose of this remand is to procure additional data. The Board intimates no opinion, either favorable or unfavorable, as to the ultimate outcome warranted in this case. N. R. ROBIN 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).