BVA9502620 
DOCKET NO.  91-19 736     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville,
Kentucky

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of a
fracture of the right ankle, currently evaluated as 20 percent
disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Division of Veterans Affairs,
Kentucky

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and John Spears

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. J. Vecchiollo, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from March 1962 to March 1965.

This matter came before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a rating decision dated in August 1990 from the
Louisville, Kentucky Regional Office (RO). The notice of
disagreement was received in September 1990. The statement of the
case was issued in October 1990.  The substantive appeal was
received in November 1990.  The Board remanded the case in July
1991 and August 1992.  In an August 1994 rating decision,
entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for
pension purposes was granted.

REMAND

In August 1992, this case was remanded for further development,
including an orthopedic examination.   The veteran was examined
in August 1992, and the report of the examination includes
detailed findings pertaining to the joints of the lower
extremities.  Unfortunately, the examination report is ambiguous
as to which findings pertain to the left ankle and which findings
pertain to the right ankle.  As has been noted by the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals, the duty to assist the veteran
under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.  § 5107(a)  (West 1991)
includes an obligation to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous
examination, so that an  evaluation of a disability will be a
fully informed one.  Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990);
Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991).   As a result of the
ambiguity in the examination report of August 1992, the most
recent VA examination in the record is one that does not provide
a basis for a fully informed evaluation of the veteran's
disability of the right ankle.  For this reason, further
development of this case is necessary.  This case is remanded for
the following action:

The RO should schedule the veteran for
an examination to determine the
current manifestations of the
veteran's service-connected disability
of the right ankle.  The claims folder
should be made available to the
examining physician for review in
conjunction with the examination.  The
examiner should report all findings in
detail, to include the exact ranges of
motion of the right ankle.  The
examiner should also state whether the
functioning of the right ankle is
limited as a result of pain and/or
weakness, and if such limitations are
present, the examiner should state the
degree to which such pain and/or
weakness limits the functions of the
ankle.  If the examiner finds that the
functions of the ankle are limited as
result of pain and/or weakness, the
examiner should also specify on which
of his observations the conclusions as
to limitation of function are based.

If the claim cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the
appellant following completion of this development, the appellant
and his representative should be provided a supplemental
statement of the case, and they should be given an opportunity to
respond before the case is returned to the Board

          G. H. SHUFELT
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
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).