BVA9502122 
DOCKET NO.  92-21 971     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South
Carolina

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of a stab
wound and laceration of the liver with residual subphrenic
abscess, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of a stab
wound with pleural effusion, empyema and residuals of resection
of the left 8th and 9th ribs with partial regeneration of the 9th
rib, currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling.

3.  Entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of repair of
multiple ventral incisional hernias, currently evaluated as 20
percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Robert E. P. Jones, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from January 1963 to March
1967.  This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a January 1992 rating decision by the
Columbia, South Carolina, Regional Office (RO).

The veteran received a stab wound in June 1964.  This resulted in
injury to the veteran's liver and left lung.  The veteran's
claims were remanded to the RO in October 1993 for further
development.  The Board remand requested that the veteran be
given a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination to
include a pulmonary function test.  In April 1994 the veteran
received a VA pulmonary examination.  The examiner noted that he
would order a full pulmonary function test in order to determine
whether the veteran's shortness of breath was due to the
inservice stab wound or smoking.  There is no record that the
veteran received a pulmonary function test at that time.

In light of the foregoing, this case is hereby REMANDED to the
agency of original jurisdiction for the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the appropriate
VA medical centers and obtain copies of all
available treatment records, both inpatient
and outpatient, subsequent to March 1994.
All copies obtained should be associated
with the veteran's claims folder.

2.  After the above development has been
accomplished, the RO should schedule the
veteran for a VA  pulmonary examination to
determine the nature and extent of any
curent pulmonary disability.  All pertinent
testing should be accomplished, including
pulmonary function studies and all other
diagnostic testing deemed necessary. All
residuals of the stab wound to the left
lung should be noted in detail. The claims
file should be made available to the
examiner prior to examination for review.

3. The veteran should also scheduled for an
examination to determine the extent and
severity of the residuals of the stab wound
to the liver. The examiner should note in
detail all current manifestations
attributable to this injury. If deemed
appropriate, liver function studies should
be accomplished. All clinical
manifestations should be reported in
detail.  The claims file should be made
available to the examiner prior to
examination for review.

After the requested development has been completed, the veteran's
claim should again be considered by the RO.  Should any prior
denial be confirmed, the case should then be returned to the
Board, if in order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the
ultimate outcome of this case.  The veteran need take no action
unless otherwise notified.  The purpose of this remand is to
obtain necessary information.

          WAYNE M. BRAEUER
          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).