BVA9503407 DOCKET NO. 93-13 166 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for residuals of laceration of the left middle finger (minor extremity). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. L. Kennedy, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from April 1989 to September 1991. This appeal arises from a March 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO). In that decision, the RO granted service connection for status postoperative right inguinal herniorrhaphy, and residual of laceration of the left middle finger (minor extremity); both were assigned separate noncompensable evaluations. The veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement with the evaluations assigned these disabilities, a statement of the case was issued, and a substantive appeal received. However, the veteran stated at a personal hearing held at the RO in January 1993 that he wished to withdraw his appeal of the issue of his entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for his service-connected status postoperative right inguinal herniorrhaphy. Accordingly, no further appellate consideration will be accorded that issue. Moreover, the record reflects that the veteran has requested that his claim be amended to include the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disability secondary to his service-connected status postoperative right inguinal herniorrhaphy. the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) notes that the RO has initiate development of this issue; it is not currently in appellate status. REMAND The veteran's representative has requested that the case be remanded to the RO in order to afford the veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and extent of any residuals of a laceration of the left middle finger that may be present. It is asserted that although the veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 1991, that examination was limited to an examination of the veteran's postoperative inguinal and hemophilia, and, in fact, the veteran's left middle finger was not examined. It is asserted that in light of the veteran's complaints of recurrent infection and of a tender and painful scar associated with the laceration, a VA examination is necessary. Moreover, it is argued that the service-connected disability at issue should be evaluation under the provisions of Diagnostic Code 7804 of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. A review of the record reflects that the veteran was not afforded a VA examination that specifically addressed the question of the nature and extent of residuals of a laceration of the left middle finger. At a personal hearing held at the RO in January 1993, the veteran reported that the scar from the laceration of the left middle finger was tender. He also stated that he experiences recurrent infections at the site of the wound which he has treated himself. The VA has a duty to assist a claimant in the development of facts pertinent to his or her claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). The U. S. 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). Based on the veteran's current complaints and in light of the fact that the veteran's left middle finger was apparently not examined at the time of the November 1991 VA examination, the Board finds that additional development is warranted in this case. Accordingly, the RO should ensure that the veteran is afforded a VA examination for rating purposes. In view of the foregoing, and in order to fairly and fully adjudicate the veteran's claim, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The veteran should be afforded an examination to determine the nature and extent of the residuals of laceration of the left middle finger. The examiner should elicit from the veteran and record for the record all pertinent complaints as well as an account of how the disorder affects employment. The report should sum- marize all significant positive findings, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity, to include employability, and any functional loss due to pain, imposed by the disorder. The examiner should indicate the presence of any open wound, infectious process, and describe whether the residuals of the laceration include a painful scar. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. 2. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim. The rating should reflect consideration of the applicability of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 3.324, and Code 7804. If the determination remains adverse to the veteran, he should be provided a supplemental statement of the case which includes a summary of additional evidence, citation of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 3.324, and Code 7804, and the reasons for the decision. The veteran and his representative should be afforded the applicable time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and ensure that the veteran is afforded all due process of law. The Board intimates no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate conclusion warranted in this case. GARY L. GICK 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 deter- mination. 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).