BVA9508425 DOCKET NO. 93-08 735 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for scar as residual of abrasion, laceration, contusion, left knee. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder, anemia, and an ear disorder. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, forehead scars, and a left zygoma fracture. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: American Red Cross WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. B. Weiss, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from August 1970 to June 1978. In an April 4, 1991 statement, the veteran claimed service connection for an eye condition. It does not appear that this claim was adjudicated. In a statement received July 31, 1991, the veteran claimed service connection for brain hemorrhage, and hypertension with a heart condition. These disorders were denied in the rating action of November 26, 1991. The veteran was informed of this determination in a letter dated "Nov 03 1991." In a statement dated February 1, 1993, the veteran declared: "No decision on my claim for hypertension." This matter is referred to the regional office for appropriate disposition. In his substantive appeal and a February 1993 statement the veteran additionally claimed a nonservice-connected pension and possibly a total rating based on individual unemployability. These matters are not developed for appellate review and are not before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) at this time. They are not inextricably intertwined with the instant claims. Therefore, they are referred to the regional office (RO) for adjudication. REMAND The veteran claims service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to two motor vehicle accidents in service; however, his mental disorder claim has not been developed as such. In his September 1991 statement, the veteran advised that "further information may be obtained from" the "State Insurance Fund." However, it does not appear that the RO attempted to obtain such further information. The veteran also attached to a March 15, 1991, statement and to the July 31, 1991 statement, documents from various medical care providers regarding his conditions. While these statements are helpful, it is found that directly requesting complete records from these providers would additionally assist in appellate determination. In an August 1993 statement, the representative requests that records pertinent to the veteran's Social Security disability benefits be obtained and considered. To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claims and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the veteran for the claimed relevant disorders since August 1992. After securing the necessary releases, the RO should attempt to obtain these records, as well as the complete relevant records of the providers referenced in the March and July 1991 statements with attachments, by requesting them directly from the providers, and the relevant records of the "State Insurance Fund." 2. The RO should make a further attempt to secure the veteran's service personnel records and the accident reports of the claimed motor vehicle accidents in service through official channels. 3. The RO should obtain from the Social Security Administration the records pertinent to the appellant's claim for Social Security disability benefits as well as the medical records relied upon concerning that claim. 4. After the above records have been secured, the RO should schedule the veteran for a special VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and extent of all of the veteran's neuropsychiatric disorders, to include any PTSD. If PTSD is diagnosed, then the examiner should provide an opinion as to what event(s) was the precipitating stressor. The examiner should comment upon the etiological relationship, if any, between any multiple diagnoses rendered. All diagnoses should be in accordance with the American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3d ed. rev. 1987). The claims folder must be provided to the examiner prior to the examination. 5. The veteran should be afforded a VA skin examination to provide a current opinion as to the severity of scarring as a residual of abrasion, laceration, contusion, left knee. Any indicated diagnostic testing or consultation should be performed. 6. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again review the record, including finality considerations where appropriate. If any benefit sought on appeal, for which a notice of disagreement has been filed, remains denied, the appellant and representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action until otherwise notified. JOHN E. ORMOND 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).