BVA9504391 DOCKET NO. 93-08 873 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral Achilles tendinitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to the right wrist. 3. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for postoperative residuals of a dislocation of the left fifth toe. 4. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for residuals of a laceration of the right chin with fracture of the left jaw. 5. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation pursuant to the provisions if 38 C.F.R. § 3.324 (1993). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Siegel, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from June 1982 to November 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from decisions from the Regional Office (RO). By rating action dated in March 1992, the RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral Achilles tendinitis and for residuals of an injury to the right wrist. In addition, the RO granted service connection for postoperative residuals of a dislocation of the left fifth toe and for residuals of a laceration of the right chin with fracture of the left jaw. In the March 1992 rating action, the RO also denied a compensable evaluation based on the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.324. The veteran disagreed with the noncompensable evaluation assigned for his service-connected disabilities. The initial question before the Board is whether the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that a well-grounded claim is one which is plausible or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In this case, the veteran's evidentiary assertions concerning the onset of his claimed bilateral Achilles tendinitis and right wrist injury that are within the competence of a lay party to report are sufficient to conclude that his claims are well grounded. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992), King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). The service medical records disclose that the veteran was seen on a number of occasions for complaints involving pain in the Achilles tendons. During the separation examination in November 1991, he related a long history of bilateral Achilles tendon problems. No abnormalities of the foot were noted on clinical evaluation at that time. When the veteran was examined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in January 1992, it was noted that he was taking medication for the relief of an aching sensation in both Achilles tendons. While a history of bilateral Achilles tendinitis was diagnosed, it was noted that the veteran was symptomatic, but had no functional impairment. With respect to the claim for service connection for residuals of an injury to the right wrist, the Board observes that the veteran was treated over a several month period during service in 1991 for symptoms of the right wrist. In August 1991, it was thought that he might have arthritis, but X-rays of the wrist were within normal limits. During the January 1992 VA examination, the veteran reported a cracking sensation of the right wrist, and that he was on medication for his symptoms. He related difficulty in lifting objects weighing more than ten pounds. An examination showed some crepitus over the dorsal aspect of the right wrist. The diagnosis was history of injury to the right wrist. It was noted that the veteran was symptomatic and that there was functional impairment. The Board notes that the claims folder was not available for review by the examiner in conjunction with the 1992 VA examination. Thus, the examiner did not have an opportunity to review the service medical records, which, as noted above, include several reports that are pertinent to the veteran's claims. In addition, although the veteran has not specifically reported receiving treatment for any of his disabilities, the veteran has signed a release dated in January 1993 permitting the United States Postal Service to receive VA records. If there are any treatment records, no attempt has been made by the RO to procure them. 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). The Court has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining adequate VA examination. This duty is neither optional nor discretionary. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). This duty also includes providing additional VA examinations by a specialist when recommended. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). The fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist includes conducting a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into account the records of prior medical treatment, so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991). Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that additional development of the record is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for action as follows: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he furnish the names, addresses, and dates of treatment of all medical providers from whom he has received treatment for his right wrist left fifth toe, jaw, or bilateral Achilles tendon disability since 1993. He should execute the proper authorization forms for release of this information. 2. Thereafter, the RO should seek to obtain copies of all treatment records referred to by the veteran. 3. The veteran should then be afforded a VA examination by a specialist in orthopedics , if available, to determine the nature and extent of his right wrist and bilateral Achilles tendon disabilities. All necessary tests should be performed. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Following completion of the above, the RO should review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims may now be granted. If not, he and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and the case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. G. H. SHUFELT 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).