Citation Nr: 0002895 Decision Date: 02/04/00 Archive Date: 02/10/00 DOCKET NO. 98-15 931 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the right wrist, status post surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome. 2. Entitlement to a compensable original evaluation for residuals of a burn injury to the right hand. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Andrew Ahlberg, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1943 to February 1946. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from adverse action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama, (hereinafter RO). The increased rating claim on appeal is an original claim placed in appellate status by a notice of disagreement taking exception with the initial noncompensable rating assigned for residuals of a burn injury to the right hand by a June 1998 rating decision. Accordingly, the principles enumerated in Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999) with respect to "staged ratings" are for application. REMAND The Board finds that the veteran has perfected an appeal with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the right wrist, status post surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome, and that this issue was not resolved by the June 1998 rating decision which granted service connection for residuals of a burn injury to the right hand. Accordingly, the RO upon remand will be directed to prepare a supplemental statement of the case that addresses this issue. Such action will avoid any potential prejudice to the veteran which would result from initial adjudication of this issue by the Board. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 393 (1993). With regard to the claim for a compensable original evaluation for residuals of a burn injury to the right hand, the RO upon remand will be requested to afford the veteran a VA dermatologic examination to determine the severity of this disability. Such action is necessary because the only pertinent clinical evidence is contained in the reports from the April 1997 VA "General" examination, and the Board finds this evidence to be insufficient for rating purposes. In addition, the RO will be directed to consider whether this disability might be more appropriate rated under a diagnostic code pertaining to burn scars rather than DC 7805 ("other" scars). For the reasons stated above, this case is REMANDED for the following development: 1. The veteran is to be afforded a VA dermatologic examination limited to determine the extent and severity of the service-connected residuals of the burn injury to the right hand. The size of the residual burn scars is to be measured in terms of square inches or square centimeters. Color unretouched photographs of the burn scar should also be made part of the report. The claims file is to be provided to the physician for review prior to the examination. 2. When the requested development has been completed, the RO should adjudicate the claims on appeal. The adjudication of the increased rating claim on appeal should include consideration of whether the service-connected burn residuals might be more appropriately rated under a diagnostic code pertaining to the rating of burn scars, i.e. DC 7801 or DC 7802. This adjudication should also include consideration of whether "staged ratings" are warranted. Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 119. 3. The RO should also consider whether the case should be submitted to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director, VA Compensation and Pension Service for assignment of extraschedular rating for the veteran's disabilities under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(1999). 4. Finally, the RO should consider carefully and with heighten mindfulness the benefit of the doubt rule. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b). If the evidence is not in equipoise the RO should explain why. See Cartwright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 26 (1991). 5. If the above adjudication does not result in a full grant of all benefits sought, the veteran should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, and afforded the appropriate period of time in which to respond. Thereafter, the appeal should be returned to the Board for continuation of appellate review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to accord the veteran due process of law. The Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of this case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. No action is required of the veteran until further notification. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. JOAQUIN AGUAYO-PERELES Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (1999).