BVA9508393 DOCKET NO. 93-11 012 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUE Entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. E. Harrison, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from November 1960 to November 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals on appeal from a February 1991 rating decision by the RO. REMAND Subsequent to the rating decision of February 1991, the veteran was awarded Social Security Disability Benefits in May 1992. The record contains the administrative law judge's decision and within that decision the judge makes reference to an examination of the veteran's skin and low back by Dr. Collis. The Judge also referenced an examination in June 1991 in which Dr. Bomalaski concluded that the veteran was suffering from major depression. Also made part of the administrative law judge's decision was hearing testimony by Ms. Lane, a vocational expert, who stated that the veteran's major depression and frequent crying spells would interfere with his ability to hold a job. The Board finds that the Social Security Administration records and any records pertaining to the veteran held by Dr. Collis, Dr. Bomalaski and Ms. Lane are pertinent to the veteran's claim for a total and permanent disability rating for pension purposes. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). Therefore, the RO should take appropriate steps to obtain copies of these records. The RO should also arrange for the veteran to undergo the appropriate VA examinations to ascertain the nature and current severity of all disability found. If the examiner finds that the veteran has any pain as a result of any of his disabilities, the examiner should express an opinion as to the effect that pain has on the veteran's employability. Thereafter, the RO should assign a rating for each of the veteran's disabilities. Roberts v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 387 (1992). In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to contact the veteran and ask him to identify all physicians or medical facilities from which he has received treatment for hypertension, hemorrhoids, depression and his low back. Upon proper authorization from the veteran copies of all records should be obtained. This should include copies of all treatment records from Dr. Collis, Dr. Bomalaski and Ms. Lane. 2. After completion of the foregoing, the veteran should be scheduled for VA orthopedic, psychiatric, dermatology, and cardiovascular examination. The examiners should review the claims folder and provide findings as appropriate regarding the degree of impairment caused by each of the veteran's disabilities. Any other disorder should be examined and reported in detail. The examinations should be conducted in accord with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (IB 11- 56, March 1, 1985). All clinical testing should be done in this regard. The examiners should render an opinion as to what effect the disabilities found have on the veteran's ability to work. 3. The RO should insure that medical findings are sufficiently complete to evaluate each of the veteran's disabilities under the pertinent rating criteria. Additional development should be taken as necessary. Each of the veteran's disabilities should be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1994). Thereafter, consideration should be given to whether the veteran meets the objective criteria for the assignment of a permanent and total rating for pension purposes as set forth in 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1502(a)(1), 1521 (West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 4.15 (1994). If the veteran does not meet this standard of pension eligibility, consideration should then be given to the question of whether the veteran specifically is unemployable as a result of lifetime disability. Brown v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 444 (1992). This requires application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(2) (1994) and 38 C.F.R. § 4.17 (1994). In short, when the percentage requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (1994) have not been met, but the disabilities are of a permanent nature, a rating of permanent and total disability may still be assigned if the veteran is found to be unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment § 4.17. Consideration should include whether the veteran is unemployable by reason of disability, age, occupational background, or any other related factors. § 3.321(b)(2). 4. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran, a supplemental statement of the case should be prepared and the veteran and his representative should be given a reasonable period of time for reply. Thereafter, the claim should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. No action is required of the appellant until he receives further notice. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information. The Board does not intimate any factual or legal conclusions as to the outcome ultimately warranted in this appeal. STEPHEN L. WILKINS 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).