BVA9505451 
DOCKET NO.  91-50 076     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Oakland, California

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of hepatitis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: California Department of Veterans
Affairs

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Johnston, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from March 1976 to May 1979.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from an April 1991 rating decision of the Oakland,
California, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office
(RO), which denied entitlement to the benefit sought on appeal.

REMAND

This case was previously remanded for the collection of
additional service medical records and for the purposes of
conducting a special physical examination to determine the
nature, severity and etiological origins of any hepatitis/liver
disorder.  While the additional service medical records from
Fort Benning, Georgia, were collected, the examination was not
conducted.  The RO indicated that the veteran failed to report
for the examination.

However, it cannot be determined from the evidence in the claims
folder whether the veteran received actual notice of this
examination.  Initially, notice of a future physical examination
was sent to Noraine Drive in Santa Clara, California, in May
1992.  The veteran's address of record was 2559 Morane Drive.
While the subsequently issued September 1994 Supplemental
Statement of the Case was initially addressed to the Noraine
Drive, Santa Clara address, it was later apparently changed to an
address in San Jose, California.  Finally, a VA Form 119, Report
of Contact, at the top of the claims folder, indicated that as of
February 1995, the veteran was a resident at the VA Medical
Center in Palo Alto, California.  Considering that the veteran
appears to have some degree of psychiatric disability coupled
with his apparent changes of address makes it questionable
whether he ever received actual notice of the physical
examination which was to be conducted pursuant to the previous
remand.  While 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (1994) provides that a
claimant's failure to report for an examination requires either a
decision based on the evidence of record or denial of the claim,
that regulation is based upon the assumption that the veteran
receives notice of that physical examination.  The evidence on
file does not show that the veteran received notice.

The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).
Under the circumstances, the case is again REMANDED to the RO for
the following:

          1.  The RO should attempt to ensure that the
veteran's current address of record is
correct.

          2.  The RO should schedule the veteran for a
VA examination in order to determine the
nature, extent and severity of any residuals
of hepatitis or liver disorder.  All
necessary special testing should be
conducted and the examination should be in
accordance with the Physician's Guide for
Disability Evaluation Examinations.  The
report of the examination should be clear
and legible.  The claims folder must be made
available to the examiner prior to
examination for review in evaluating the
veteran's case.  In addition to rendering an
opinion as to the current extent and
severity of any presently manifested
residuals of hepatitis and/or any liver
dysfunction, the examiner should be
requested to render an opinion as to the
most probable etiological origin of any such
disorder.  In this regard, the examiner
should note that the veteran was apparently
treated for hepatitis during service and
that upon his release from medical
treatment, his SGOT was still elevated.
However, no comments regarding any residuals
of hepatitis were contained in the veteran's
physical examination for separation, nor
were there any such residuals noted in a
post-service medical examination in 1988.
The examiner should note that elevated SGOT
and abnormal liver function tests were shown
in VA serological testing conducted in
January 1988.  The examiner should provide
an opinion as to whether it is more, less or
equally probable that any present liver
dysfunction or residuals of hepatitis are
related to the veteran's manifestation of
hepatitis in service.

          3.  After completion of the above
development, the RO should again address the
issue presented on appeal.  If the decision
remains adverse, the veteran and his
representative should be provided with an
appropriate supplemental statement of the
case and a reasonable opportunity to
respond.

The case should then be returned to the Board for final appellate
review.  The veteran need do nothing until further notified.

          THOMAS J. DANNAHER
          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).