BVA9506357 DOCKET NO. 93-16 167 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. M. Flatley, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from November 1940 to May 1945. This appeal arises from a February 1993 rating decision of the New York, New York Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). Initial review of the record indicates that the appellant has submitted a well-grounded claim, that is, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81-82 (1990). The VA has a duty to assist the appellant in the development of facts pertinent to a well-grounded claim. Id. In this regard, it is noted that in a January 1994 statement, the appellant's representative commented that the report of the veteran's final private hospitalization in September and October 1992 included reference to previous hospitalizations and to treatment from other health care providers. It was requested that records of such treatment be obtained, as they may impact upon the outcome of the appellant's case. Upon review of the record, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is in agreement that additional clinical data may prove helpful in the evaluation of the appellant's claim. As such, this case is REMANDED for the following: 1. After any necessary information and authorization are obtained from the appellant, copies of any treatment records, VA or private, inpatient or outpatient, associated with the veteran's service- connected gunshot wound residuals and the veteran's primary nonservice-connected disabilities, particularly arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease and renal disease, should be obtained by the RO and incorporated into the claims folder. Reports of additional treatment of the veteran's remaining principal disabilities throughout the past several years should also be obtained. In seeking such information and data, attention is directed to the Amsterdam Memorial Hospital discharge summary dated in September and October 1992, which includes reference to an earlier hospitalization in August, ostensibly August 1992, a transfer from St. Mary's Hospital, and various private health care providers. Clinical records associated with the veteran's final hospitalization should also be sought. Any records obtained should be incorporated into the claims folder. 2. After any necessary information and authorization are obtained from the appellant, duplicates of pertinent treatment received by the veteran from Alexander Zimmerman, M.D., who indicated in a December 1992 letter that he had been the veteran's treating physician, should be obtained. The physician should also be requested to provide further details as to his opinion that the veteran's service- connected disabilities impacted upon his fatal arteriosclerotic heart disease. Any records and response received should be incorporated into the claims folder. 3. The RO should then request that the claims folder be reviewed by a VA physician, preferably a specialist in internal medicine. The physician should be asked to provide an opinion with supporting rationale as to the degree of probability, if any, that the veteran's service connected disabilities, residuals of gunshot wounds of the lower extremities, contributed to his death. 4. The RO should then review the veteran's claim. All pertinent law, regulations, and United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) decisions, particularly Lathan v. Brown, No. 93-62 (U.S.Vet. App. January 26, 1995), a copy of which is attached, should be considered. If the appellant's claim remains denied, she and her representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case, which includes any additional pertinent law and regulations and a full discussion of action taken on the veteran's claim, consistent with the Court's instruction in Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). The appellant and her representative should be afforded the applicable time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, after compliance with customary appellate procedures. No action is required of the appellant until she is so informed. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate decision warranted in this case, pending completion of the requested development. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).