BVA9502954 DOCKET NO. 93-12 307 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of chemical burns of the eyes with corneal scarring and superficial punctate keratopathy, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1982 to June 1985, and again from June 1987 to June 1990. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 1992 decision of the Hearing Officer in the Louisville, Kentucky, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Hearing Officer determined that a reduction in disability compensation in accordance with 38 C.F.R. 3.105(e) was not warranted, but denied entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for the service-connected residuals of chemical burns of the eyes. In October 1990, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The veteran did not appeal that determination. In a statement dated in May 1993, the veteran argued that service connection should be granted since hypertension was diagnosed shortly after separation from active duty. It appears that the veteran has submitted an informal application to reopen a claim for service connection for hypertension. This issue is not developed or certified for appeal, and is referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The veteran underwent a VA compensation examination in January 1993. The physician commented that the physical examination was significant for marked superior pannus in both eyes. Based on the veteran's complaints and a physical examination, the physician opined that the veteran needed to be seen immediately at the Cornea Clinic. The physician indicated that the veteran's visual acuity may decrease if not treated properly. The representative argues that the VA has a duty to obtain these records since they are relevant to the issue of increased compensation for the service-connected bilateral eye disorder. Under the present circumstances, the Board is persuaded that the following development is warranted. Accordingly, the claim is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should state where he has received VA inpatient and/or outpatient treatment of the eyes since January 1993, and the RO should obtain copies of all these records. It was indicated in the January 1993 VA examination report that the veteran was to receive treatment of the eyes beginning that month at the Louisville, Kentucky, VA Cornea Clinic. Any evidence obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be requested to submit copies of any additional private medical records in support of his claim which are dated since January 1993. At the veteran's request, accompanied by written authorization, the RO should assist in requesting the evidence. Any evidence obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 3. The veteran should then be afforded a special VA ophthalmology examination to determine the nature and extent of all residuals of chemical burns of the eyes with corneal scarring and superficial punctate keratopathy. The scope of the examination should be broad enough to cover all residual conditions which are suggested by the veteran's complaints, symptoms or findings. The reported medical history should include any time lost from work due to the service-connected disability. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All necessary tests should be performed, including examination of the veteran's current bilateral visual acuity. The physician should be provided the claims folder for review prior to examination. 4. When the above development has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO, and any issues on appeal should be adjudicated. The rating decision should reflect consideration of all potentially applicable criteria, to include consideration of the applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). If the decision remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent evidence, fully cites the applicable legal provisions not previously contained in the July 1992 statement of the case and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision. They should then be afforded the applicable time period to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. 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).