BVA9508098 DOCKET NO. 93-17 806 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for radial nerve palsy on the right, currently rated at 70 percent. 2. Entitlement to a total rating on the basis of individual unemployability due to service-connected disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. M. Flatley, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from September 1988 to September 1990. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 1992 and June 1992 rating decisions of the Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). With regard to the increased rating claim, review of the record indicates that the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The VA therefore has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81-82 (1990). The Board initially notes that in a statement prepared in September 1994, the veteran's representative alleged that the veteran's right upper extremity disorder resulted in chronic pain syndrome. It is requested that a psychiatric examination be undertaken in this regard. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that when an issue raised on appeal, but not developed, may impact upon a fully developed issue, further action with regard to the recently raised issue may be appropriate. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991). As noted by the representative, action taken with respect to service connection for an additional disorder may impact upon the veteran's claim of entitlement to a total rating on the basis of individual unemployability. In addition, the Board notes that the veteran's most recent VA examination for radial nerve palsy was accomplished in October 1991. VA outpatient records dated through February 1992 are of record. An April 1992 report from Womack General Hospital indicates that nerve conduction velocity studies were accomplished. At that time, a diagnosis of complete radial nerve palsy, right dominant extremity, with failed tendon transfer, was made; the examiner commented that further evaluation at either of two hand surgery clinics was indicated to reassess necessary tendon transfers. No additional evidence is of record in this regard. Upon review of the record, the Board is of the opinion that additional clinical data may prove helpful in the evaluation of the veteran's claim. In order to fully assist the veteran in the development of his case, therefore, and extend to the veteran every equitable consideration, additional development is warranted. As such, this case is REMANDED for the following: 1. After any necessary information and authorization are obtained from the veteran, records of any post-April 1992 treatment, VA or non-VA, inpatient or outpatient, associated with the veteran's radial nerve palsy on the right, should be obtained by the RO and incorporated into the claims folder. 2. Special VA orthopedic and neurologic examinations should be scheduled to determine the nature and extent of the veteran's radial nerve palsy on the right. The examinations should be conducted in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated studies should be conducted. The examination reports should include a full description of the veteran's symptoms, clinical findings, and associated functional impairment. All findings should be recorded in detail. Comprehensive reports, which represent consideration of the aforementioned factors, as well as the history of the veteran's disability, should be provided. The veteran's claims folder should be provided to the examiner for review prior to the examination. 3. A VA psychiatric examination should be arranged to determine whether a diagnosis of pain disorder is warranted in the veteran's case, and, if so, the type of pain disorder present. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The examination report should include a detailed description of the veteran's symptoms, clinical findings, and associated functional impairment; all indicated studies should be done. The examiner should identify the level of any functional impairment associated with pain disorder, if found, and should provide an assessment of the extent to which the disorder interferes with the veteran's initiative, flexibility, efficiency, and reliability levels. A comprehensive report, which includes the examiner's conclusions and the foundation upon which they are based, as well as the history of the veteran's disability, should be provided. The veteran's claims folder should be made available to the examiners for review prior to the examinations. 4. The RO should then review the veteran's claim. If the claim of service connection for pain disorder is determined to be well grounded, appropriate development should be accomplished. All pertinent law, regulations, and Court decisions should be considered, including Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994), Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991), and 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (1994). If the veteran's otherwise claim remains in a denied status, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case, which includes all pertinent law and regulations and a full discussion of action taken on the veteran's claim, consistent with the Court's instruction in Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). The applicable response time should be allowed. The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, after compliance with customary appellate procedures. No action is required of the veteran until he is so informed. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate decision warranted in this case, pending completion of the requested development. EUGENE A. O'NEILL 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 133-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).