BVA9502915 DOCKET NO. 93-03 943 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for neurogenic bladder. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of a fractured pelvis with radiculopathy and atrophy of the right lower extremity, currently rated as 20 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for hepatitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. W. Loeb, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to September 1972. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The veteran appears to be raising the issue of entitlement to service connection for residuals of Agent Orange exposure to include phlebitis. The RO should contact the veteran for clarification. REMAND A review of the record reveals that it was contended on behalf of the veteran in April 1993 that this case should be remanded to the RO for an orthopedic examination of the veteran's service- connected pelvic disability and a neurological examination to determine if he has a neurogenic bladder. The Board notes that the veteran's service-connected pelvic disability has not been examined by the VA since April 1992 and that he is claiming that it is more severe than indicated on examination in 1992. Additionally, the Board notes that it is unclear from the record whether the veteran currently has a neurogenic bladder and, if so, whether it is related to service. Finally, the Board notes that the September 1988 VA recommendation that there should be further investigation to determine whether the veteran has any residuals of hepatitis and the November 1990 VA notation that the veteran's liver functioning should be evaluated have not been accomplished. Consequently, because further development is necessary prior to final disposition of this case, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The veteran should be permitted to submit any additional evidence in his possession that is pertinent to any of the issues on appeal. He should also be asked to provide the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment of all health care providers who have treated him for any of the disabilities at issue since service discharge. He should be asked to fill out any necessary consent forms for the release of his private medical records. The RO should then obtain copies of all indicated records which are not already on file and associate them with the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be afforded a special urological examination by a board certified urologist, if available, in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations, to determine whether the veteran has a neurogenic bladder. All necessary tests and studies should be conducted, and all findings should be reported in detail. If a neurogenic bladder is diagnosed, the examiner should give an opinion whether it is at least as likely as not that the disorder is causally related to the injuries incurred by the veteran in his February 1972 automobile accident during service including a contusion of the bladder and/or the residuals of the fractured pelvis. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be fully explained. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review before examination of the veteran. 3. The veteran should also be afforded special orthopedic and neurological examinations by a board certified orthopedist and neurologist, in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations, to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected residuals of a fractured pelvis with radiculopathy and atrophy of the right lower extremity. All necessary tests and studies, including x- rays, should be conducted, and all findings should be reported in detail. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be fully explained. The claims folder must be made available to each examiner for review before examination of the veteran. 4. The veteran should also be afforded a special gastrointestinal examination by a board certified gastroenterologist, if available, in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations, to determine the current severity of his service-connected hepatitis. All necessary tests and studies, including liver function studies, should be conducted. All findings should be reported in detail. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be fully explained. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review before examination of the veteran. 5. Thereafter, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated by the RO. After the above actions have been completed, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued to the veteran and his representative for all issues in appellate status and an opportunity should then be afforded the veteran and his representative for a response. The case should then be returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. The veteran need take no action until otherwise notified. ROBERT E. SULLIVAN 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).