BVA9507902 DOCKET NO. 93-12 040 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for hemorrhoids. Entitlement to service connection for tinea pedis, angioneurotic edema, and frostbite of the hands and feet. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard V. Chamberlain, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1962 to July 1966. A February 1982 Regional Office (RO) rating decision, in part, denied service connection for hemorrhoids. The veteran was notified of this determination later in February 1982, and he did not submit a timely appeal. In 1993, the veteran submitted an application to reopen the claim for service connection for hemorrhoids, and submitted claims for service connection for tinea pedis, angioneurotic edema, and frostbite of the hands and feet, and for an increased (compensable) rating for his service-connected dyshidrosis. He disagrees with the denial of these benefits. The case was received at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in June 1993. REMAND Some of the veteran's claims are well grounded, meaning they are plausible. VA has a duty to assist him in the development of well-grounded claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1994). The duty to assist includes obtaining all relevant records and providing an adequate VA examination. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). A review of the record reveals that the January 1993 RO rating decision denied the veteran's application to reopen the claim for service connection for hemorrhoids because no new and material evidence had been submitted since the unappealed February 1982 RO rating decision, denying service connection for this disorder. The statement of the case sent to the veteran does not reflect consideration of the statutory and regulatory provisions concerning the finality of an unappealed RO rating decision and the evidence required to reopen a final claim. Due process requires that the veteran be provided with the citations of the applicable laws and regulations, and a discussion on how they affect his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (1994). The January 1993 RO rating decision denied the veteran's claim for an increased (compensable) rating for dyshidrosis, and his notice of disagreement and substantive appeal reflect disagreement with this determination. The statement of the case, however, did not include this issue. The representative in a written argument, dated in September 1993, requests appellate consideration of this issue. In the argument, the representative also claims clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the February 1982 RO rating decision granting service connection for dyshidrosis and assigning a zero percent rating. It is argued that a compensable rating for this disorder should have been assigned at that time. These matters should be addressed and, if necessary, discussed in a supplemental statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. A review of the record indicates that the veteran has not undergone a VA compensation examination in many years and that he has various skin conditions. His representative requests a remand of this case to the RO in order to have the veteran undergo a VA dermatological examination to determine the severity of his dyshidrosis. Under the circumstances, the Board believes that he should undergo a VA dermatological examination to determine the nature and extent of his skin conditions, including the etiology of any skin disorder found, other than dyshidrosis. Horowitz v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 217 (1993); Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 281 (1993). In the notice of disagreement, the veteran requested a hearing at the RO. In the substantive appeal, he indicated that he did not want a hearing. These contradictory statements should be clarified. The veteran in his 1992 claim for various benefits reports treatment for skin conditions at VA medical facilities in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama since discharge from service. In this correspondence, he also reports unsuccessful attempts to obtain copies of his service medical records. He should be advised of his right to obtain copies of his service medical records from the RO, if this has not been done. He should also be asked to provide specific information concerning treatment and/or examination for any of the claimed disorders, including ongoing treatment and/or examination, since discharge from service to assist VA in obtaining pertinent evidence not already of record in furtherance of VA's duty to assist him in the developments of facts pertinent to his claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should clarify the veteran's desire for a hearing, and schedule him for such a hearing if he wants one. 2. The RO should ask the veteran and his representative to identify all sources of treatment and/or examination (VA or non-VA) for the conditions claimed in this appeal since discharge from service. Exact locations and dates of treatment and/or examination should be provided. After obtaining any needed release forms, the RO should then directly contact the sources and obtain copies of all records not already on file. 3. The RO should ask the veteran if he wants copies of his service medical records, if this has not been done, and advise him of the costs, if any, of obtaining such records. 4. After the above development, the veteran should be scheduled for a VA dermatological examination to determine the nature and extent of any skin conditions. All indicated studies should be performed and all clinical findings reported in detail. The doctor should give a fully reason opinion on the etiology of any skin condition found, other than dyshidrosis, including any causal relationship between any skin disorder found to the service- connected dyshidrosis. The examiner should delineate the specific manifestations attributable to each skin condition found. The examiner should support his or her opinions by discussing medical principles as applied to specific medical evidence in the veteran's case. In order to assist the examiner in providing the requested information, the claims folder must be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. 5. The RO should then review the claims and determine whether they may now be granted. This includes the claim of CUE in the February 1982 rating decision which assigned a zero percent rating for dyshidrosis. If not, he and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, including the issue of an increased (compensable) rating for dyshidrosis. He should also be provided with the laws and regulations concerning the finality of an unappealed RO rating decision and of the evidence required to reopen such a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156(a) (1994). The veteran and his representative should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of the case. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 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).