BVA9501094 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 349     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic back
injury.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and his wife

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Jeffrey J. Schueler, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from July 1942 to December 1945,
including seven months as a prisoner-of-war (POW) of the German
Government.

Post-traumatic osteoarthritis and peripheral neuropathy
manifested to a degree of at least 10 percent in a POW interned
or detained for not less that 30 days are diseases subject to
presumptive service connection under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1101 (West
1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(c) (1993).  The veteran appealed a
regional office (RO) decision dated in November 1991 that denied
service connection for a post-traumatic back condition and
peripheral neuropathy because he had not submitted new and
material evidence to warrant a change in prior denials dated in
September 1987, March 1989, and September 1989.

In a similar case involving questions of the finality of an RO
decision pertaining to a POW presumptive disease, the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) recently determined that
a veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a POW
presumptive disease is a new claim, and thereby is not subject to
the requirement that new and material evidence be submitted to
reopen the claim.  In such cases, therefore, the veteran need
only submit a well-grounded claim for service connection.
Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 127, 134-37 (1993).  The RO's
decision in the instant case, to decline reopening the claim for
failure to submit new and material evidence, applied an
"incorrect standard with respect to [that claim]."  Yabut v.
Brown, 6 Vet.App. 79, 83 (1993) (applying Suttmann, the Court
determined that the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) applied an
incorrect standard when it found that the appellant failed to
introduce new and material evidence to reopen the claim).

A review of the record indicates evidence suggestive of
symptomatology associated with the veteran's back and peripheral
neuropathy, thereby demonstrating that the veteran's claim is
well-grounded.  Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990) (a
well-grounded claim is a "plausible claim, one which is
meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation").  The case
will, therefore, be remanded to the RO for a determination as to
the issues articulated on the title page of this remand.

In reviewing the record, it is also noted that Joseph R. Sabo,
M.D., reported in a February 1991 statement that he had treated
the veteran for paresthesia down the lower extremities and felt
that the back problem was caused by a back injury while a POW.
In a July 1992 statement, the veteran's representative requested
that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) obtain records of
such treatment.  On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain
copies of such treatment records.

To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should request that the veteran
supply the names and addresses of any
individuals or treatment facilities that
have treated him for a back disorder or
peripheral neuropathy since service
separation, and the dates of such
treatment.  Particular emphasis should be
placed on treatment records associated with
Dr. Sabo.  After receiving proper
authorization from the veteran, if
necessary, the RO should obtain copies of
those records and associate them with the
claims folder.

2.  The veteran should be afforded VA
orthopedic and neurologic examinations to
determine the nature and severity of all
disorders of the back, and the nature and
severity of any peripheral neuropathy in
the lower extremities.  The claims folder
should be made available to the examiners
for review before the examinations.  All
indicated studies should be accomplished,
and the examinations should be conducted in
accordance with the procedures outlined in
the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability
Evaluation Examinations (1985).  The
examiners should be requested to offer
opinions concerning the etiology of any low
back disorder found on examination and the
etiology of any peripheral neuropathy found
on examination.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record.  If
any benefit sought on appeal, for which a
notice of disagreement has been filed,
remains denied, the appellant and
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The appellant need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          WILLIAM J. REDDY
          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).