BVA9501445 DOCKET NO. 93-07 352 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for migraine headaches, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for bursitis of the left shoulder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans Service ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Kay F. Mayer, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from August 1982 to May 1988. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from a January 1992 rating decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) of Atlanta, Georgia. The Board has noted that the appellant made a claim for cisterna magna and was granted service connection and assigned a 10 percent evaluation in a February 1992 rating decision. The Board concludes that the appellant has received a partial grant of benefits sought and as the appellant has not submitted a notice of disagreement or been issued a statement of the case and, the Board has not included that claim in its consideration of the current appeal. The appellant also made a claim for service connection for a nervous disorder, to include depression, secondary to his service-connected migraine headaches in January 1992. In that statement he also indicated he had lost his last two jobs and was unable to support his family due to his migraine headaches. The Board has concluded the latter statement of the appellant is a claim for a total rating based upon being individually unemployable due to service-connected disabilities. In his substantive appeal he referred to two letters from employers, but these were not in the claims folder. Both of the aforementioned newly raised issues are referred to the RO for appropriate action. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that the Board must address all issues reasonably raised by the record. EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 324 (1991). Also, the Board has determined that those issues are not intertwined with the issues before the Board on appeal. Kellar v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 157 (1994). REMAND The Board has noted that the appellant was last examined in October 1991 for his service-connected migraine headaches and left shoulder bursitis. Additionally, the most recent outpatient records for the appellant of record involving the claims on appeal are dated from October 1990 to June 1991. He has referred to treatment at VA facilities since that time. The Board concludes that the appellant should undergo further VA neurology and orthopedic examinations to determine the current nature and extent of his service-connected disabilities involved in the claims on appeal and that all treatment records for those disabilities since June 1991 should be obtained. The VA has a duty to assist a veteran in developing factors pertinent to a potentially well-grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1993). That duty includes obtaining medical records and medical examinations where indicated by the facts and circumstances of an individual case. See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the appellant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the case is REMANDED to the regional office (RO) for the following development: 1. The RO should obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers, including the Jacksonville, Florida VA Medical Center, who treated the veteran for migraine headaches and bursitis of the left shoulder since June 1991. After securing any necessary release, the RO should obtain these records. If no records are found, the claims folder should reflect the attempts made to obtain the records. 2. The veteran should be afforded VA neurology and orthopedic examinations to determine the nature and extent of his migraine and left shoulder disabilities. All indicated tests and studies should be performed, including radiographic and range of motion studies of the left shoulder. The neurology examiner should offer an opinion of the appellant's functional impairment from his migraine headaches, including social and industrial impairment. The duration and frequency of headaches should be described. The examiners should adequately summarize the relevant medical history and clinical findings and provide detailed reasons for the medical conclusions. The examinations should be conducted and reported in accordance with the provisions set forth in the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The claims folder should be made available to the examiners for review before the examinations. When this development has been completed, and if the benefits sought are not granted, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, after compliance with appropriate appellate procedures, including issuance of a supplemental statement of the case. It is requested that the statement specifically set forth the reasons and bases for the decision. No action by the appellant is required until he receives further notice. The Board intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition warranted in this case, pending completion of the requested development. HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN 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) (1993).