BVA9504475 DOCKET NO. 93-08 742 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for impingement syndrome of the left shoulder with calcifying tendinitis and degenerative joint disease, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeanne Schlegel, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from October 1984 to August 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from an April 1991 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which granted service connection for a left shoulder condition, but assigned a noncompensable rating therefor. Following a November 1991 hearing and the hearing officer's May 1992 determination, the RO assigned the appellant's left shoulder disability a 10 percent schedular evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5024. Recently, in statements received in October 1992 and February 1993, the appellant appears to have raised the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for his bilateral foot disability, hallux valgus. This issue has not as yet been developed for appellate consideration, and is referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND Initially, the Board has found the appellant's claim well grounded pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991) in that his claim is capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). This finding is based on the appellant's evidentiary assertion that his service connected disability has increased in severity. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 629 (1992); King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). Once it has been determined that a claim is well grounded, the VA has a statutory duty to assist the appellant in the development of evidence pertinent to the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. At the November 1991 hearing, the appellant asserted that his service-connected left shoulder and foot disabilities were interfering with his ability to be employed since he described pain and trouble with overhead work, lifting and walking. As the Board must review all issues reasonably raised from a liberal reading of all documents submitted, the foregoing amounts to a claim for a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployabillity, and it is inextricably intertwined with his current appeal for an increased rating for his service- connected left shoulder disability. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991); Myers v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 127 (1991); 38 C.F.R.§ 20.202 (1993). The record reveals that the appellant's difficulties with his left shoulder began in April 1985, while in service. In April 1987 the Medical Board determined that the appellant was unable to perform his duties due to his shoulder and foot disabilities. He was subsequently separated from active service in August 1987, based on the aforementioned physical disability. Evidence of record includes four VA medical examinations conducted in October 1987, August 1990, January 1991, and February 1992; and a personal hearing held in November 1991. The appellant testified at the hearing that he was not currently receiving either private or VA medical treatment. Further, for the most part, no additional medical records are on file aside from the VA medical examination reports. Therefore, the Board is of the opinion that a current VA examination is necessary to assess the appellant's current physical condition and determine his status relative to employability, given that the most recent evidence of record is currently more than three years old. The most recent VA examination conducted in January 1992, reflected that the appellant had not worked since July 1990. Statements provided by the appellant dated January 1993, indicate that he has started several jobs, but then had to quit them on account of his disabilities. When the veteran claims a disability is worse than when originally rated, and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current state of the condition, the VA must provide a new examination. Proscelle, 2 Vet.App. at 632. The Board is of the opinion that a thorough and contemporaneous examination would be of assistance in rendering a determination in this case. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). To ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the case is REMANDED for the following development: 1. The RO should obtain and associate with the claims folder any VA inpatient and outpatient treatment records available subsequent to August 1987. 2. The RO should request that the appellant identify to the best of his ability the names, approximate dates, and locations, of any private medical providers from whom he has received treatment for his service-connected left shoulder and foot disabilities since his separation from service. After securing the necessary release, the RO should obtain copies of the actual medical treatment records from all private sources noted. 3. The appellant should be afforded a VA social and industrial survey to assess his employment history, educational background, current day-to-day functioning, and whether or not he is currently employed. This investigation should focus on the disabling aspects of the appellant's service- connected left shoulder and bilateral hallux valgus disabilities, and on their impact alone relative to his ability to work. The appellant's former employer(s) should be interviewed to learn the specific circumstances surrounding the termination of his prior employment. A written copy of the VA social work service report should be associated with the claims folder. 4. Then, a VA medical examination should be performed by an orthopedist in order to determine the nature and severity of any disability of the appellant's left shoulder. The examination should be conducted in conformance with the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (1985), to include range of motion findings, x-ray and weight bearing studies, and any other testing deemed necessary. An examination by a podiatrist is also requested to determine the nature and severity of the appellant's bilateral hallux valgus. All testing deemed necessary should be performed. The examiner(s) should be asked to provide an overall assessment of the appellant's employability with regard to his service- connected disabilities. The claims folder and a copy of this REMAND should be made available to the examiner(s) in conjunction with this examination. 5. After this development has been completed, the RO should review the appellant's claims for increased ratings and adjudicate his inextricably intertwined claim for a total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued to the appellant and his representative, and they should be provided an opportunity to respond. Subsequently, the claims folder should be returned to the Board for further review, if necessary. J.F. GOUGH 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).