BVA9503128 DOCKET NO. 93-07 170 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for tachycardia, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for cervical strain, with degenerative changes, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for partial paralysis of the long thoracic nerve on the right side, with winged scapula and degenerative changes of the shoulder, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for lumbosacral strain, with degenerative changes. 5. Entitlement to a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph P. Gervasio, Jr., Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1969 to March 1976 and from October 1981 to November 1985. This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Montgomery, Alabama, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied increased ratings for tachycardia, cervical and lumbosacral strain, and partial paralysis of the right long thoracic nerve, and which also denied a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability. REMAND The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in developing facts pertinent to his well-grounded claims (i.e., claims which are not inherently implausible). 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a)(West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1993). This duty includes obtaining all relevant private and governmental records, and, when indicated by the circumstances of the case, ordering a medical examination. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). In an August 1992 substantive appeal, the veteran requested that his VA vocational rehabilitation counseling records be obtained, for consideration with his claims. These records are not currently associated with the claims folder and should be secured. In support of his claim, the veteran has submitted a July 1992 statement from James M. Sornsin, M.D., who indicated that he was enclosing a copy of a medical exami-nation he had performed. This report is not in the claims file, and the contents of a subsequent RO rating decision imply the report was never received. The veteran has also submitted an April 1992 letter from Michael L. Patterson, D.C., who seemed to indicate that he had rendered treatment to the veteran, although no treatment records were submitted. In a February 1993 statement, the veteran also referred to ongoing outpatient treatment he was receiving. The duty to assist requires that an effort be made to obtain all such medical records. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). The veteran has also requested another VA compensation examination. In light of the allegations of increased disability, and the fact that the last compensation examination is over three years old, a current examination is warranted. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377 (1994). Under these circumstances, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The veteran's VA vocational rehabilitation folders, including all counseling records, should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should contact James M. Sornsin, M.D. and Michael L. Patterson, D.C. and request copies of all records concerning treatment and examination of the veteran from 1992 to the present. The RO should also instruct the veteran to prepare a list (names, addresses, dates) of all sources of other VA or non-VA medical treatment or examinations for his service-connected disorders, from 1992 to the present; the RO should then obtain copies of the identified records, following the procedures of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 3. After all records have been associated with the claims folder, the RO should have the veteran undergo special cardiac, orthopedic and neurologic examinations to fully evaluate the severity of his service- connected disabilities. The claims folder should be made available to, and reviewed by, the examiners. All indicated tests and special studies should be performed. When this action is completed, the claims should be reviewed by the RO. Should the claims be denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to this Board for further appellate consideration. L. W. TOBIN 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).