BVA9504021 DOCKET NO. 93-08 110 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for chronic lumbar strain, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 4. Entitlement to a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard F. Williams, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1981 to May 1984. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from April and September 1992 decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Denver, Colorado, Regional Office (RO). The former decision found that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen a claim for service connection for pes planus, denied an increased rating for service-connected lumbar strain (rated 10 percent), and denied a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability. The latter decision denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. REMAND In a statement received by the RO in June 1993, the veteran raised several issues that have not been developed for appellate consideration. He requested disability compensation for multiple bleeding ulcers, eye problems, a shoulder disability and a leg disorder. He attributed the claimed multiple bleeding ulcers to his service-connected low back disability. Since one of the issues that has been developed for appellate consideration is entitlement to a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities, I find that these raised issues are "inextricably intertwined" with the current appeal, within the meaning of Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991), and, therefore, they need to be adjudicated first by the RO. The veteran's claims for an increased rating for lumbar strain and a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability are well grounded, meaning they are not inherently implausible, and a review of the file reveals there is a further duty to assist him in developing facts pertinent to these claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103, 3.159 (1994). In reviewing the record, I note that a medical examination in January 1992 was the most recent evaluation performed for the purpose of evaluating the veteran's service-connected lumbar strain. In view of the fact that the last compensation examination was over three years ago, and there are allegations of increased impairment since that time, a current examination is warranted. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92-93 (1991); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 123-124 (1991); Caffery v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377, 381 (1994). It is also pertinent to point out that the veteran's claims file was not available at the time of the last two VA compensation examinations (April 1990 and January 1992). Further review of the record shows that the veteran has been evaluated and treated by a private physician and at a VA medical center (VAMC) in recent years for his low back disability. There may be additional clinical records available which are relevant to this appeal. The statutory duty to assist him includes the obligation to obtain ongoing treatment records while a claim is pending. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). Hence, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should ask the veteran, with the assistance of his representative, to prepare a detailed list of all sources (VA or non-VA) of examination and treatment for his low back disability, psychiatric disorder, pes planus, and any other disabilities for which he is claiming service connection. Names and addresses of medical providers, and dates of examination and treatment, should be listed. These should include a Jeanne Miller (or Millen) who has given him psychological counseling. After obtaining any needed release forms from him, the RO should directly contact the medical providers and obtain copies of the records that are not already on file. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1994). 2. The RO should have the veteran complete the VA form for applying for a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability. His previous employers should be contacted to provide the usual information. 3. The RO should associate the rehabilitation and education folder with the claims file. 4. The veteran should undergo a VA social and industrial survey. This should include, in part, a compilation of his work and educational history, and details concerning all health problems. If he is not working, it should be learned how he supports himself and, if applicable, his family. 5. After all records are added to the file, the RO should have the veteran undergo a comprehensive VA orthopedic examination for the purpose of determining the current severity of his lumbar strain and the etiology and extent of any bilateral foot disability that may be present, including pes planus. The examiner should specify whether the pes planus is of the congenital or acquired variety. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.57 (1994). This examination must be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated tests, including range of motion studies of the low back, should be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the requested examination. 6. Thereafter, the RO should review the claims for an increased rating for lumbar strain and a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability, all intertwined claims for service connection, and the issue of whether new and material evidence has been presented to reopen a claim for service connection for pes planus. Thereafter, if any benefit currently sought on appeal remains denied, or the veteran disagrees with the denial of any additional benefit, he and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond. Then the case should be returned to the Board. J. E. DAY 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).