BVA9504595 DOCKET NO. 91-22 126 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include heart disease. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of service connection for a stomach disorder to include ulcer disease. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for hemorrhoids, to include a rectal disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of orchitis. 5. Entitlement to an increased rating for anxiety reaction with conversion symptoms, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. 6. Entitlement to an increased rating for lumbosacral strain, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 7. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a chalazion of the left eye. 8. Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant, and Rosemarie House ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark D. Hindin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1944 to January 1947. This appeal arises from January, April, June and July 1989 rating decisions in which the regional office (RO) held that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen claims of service connection for hypertension to include a heart disease; a stomach disorder , to include ulcer disease; and hemorrhoids, to include a rectal disorder. These rating decisions also denied entitlement to service connection for orchitis, increased ratings for psychiatric, low back and left eye disabilities, and a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability. In January 1992, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) remanded the case to the regional office for additional development. Some of that development was completed and the case was returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Although the issue of entitlement to a total and permanent rating for pension purposes was listed as an issue for consideration in the Board's remand decision, the veteran indicated in an April 1993, statement that he did not wish to pursue that issue and it has not been developed for appellate consideration. In October 1993, the veteran was afforded a hearing at the Board. The Board member presiding at that hearing is the signatory to this remand. At the hearing, the issue of entitlement to aid and attendance was raised on the veteran's behalf. This issue was not developed for appellate review and it is referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND At the hearing at the Board in October 1993, the veteran and his witness reported that he had been awarded Social Security disability benefits following his termination of employment in 1987. Records from the Social Security Administration are not currently part of the claims folder. As part of its duty to assist him with the development of his claim for entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes, the VA must seek records from the Social Security Administration. Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 526 (1992). The Board also notes that the veteran has apparently never been afforded a VA examination where the claims folder was available for review by the examiners. The veteran's representative, contended at the hearing at the Board that recent VA rating examinations were inadequate. The representative pointed out that there were no reports of the range of motion of the veteran's back. Such ranges of motion would be important in evaluating the veteran's back disability Recent VA examinations and treatment records have identified a large number of significant psychiatric symptomatology. A wide variety of psychiatric diagnoses and etiologies for those diagnoses have been made. It is unclear from the current record which of the veteran's psychiatric symptoms are related to his service connected disability and which are not. Additionally, some of the development requested in the Board's prior remand has not been completed. In view of precedents of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals, the veteran's contentions, and the current state of the record, it is necessary to again REMAND the case for the following: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he furnish information as to any treatment he has received recently for the conditions at issue in this appeal. The RO should then take all necessary steps to obtain those records and associate them with the claims folder. 2. The RO should take all necessary steps to obtain information from the veteran's former employer, United Airlines, relating to the reasons for the veteran's termination of employment. 3. The RO should then schedule the veteran for a comprehensive VA psychiatric examination. This study must be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated tests, including appropriate psychological studies with applicable subscales, must be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the requested study. The examiner must assign a Global Assessment of Functioning Score consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's DIAGNOSTIC AND STATIS-TICAL MANUAL FOR MENTAL DISORDERS (3d ed. rev., 1987), and explain what the assigned score represents. The examiner should express an opinion as to what symptoms and what portion of the GAF score is attributable to the service connected psychiatric disability as opposed to other conditions. The examiner should also express an opinion as to the relationship between the veteran's service connected anxiety disorder with conversion features and any other conditions identified in the course of the examination. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. 4. The veteran should also be afforded comprehensive VA orthopedic and eye examinations in order to identify the nature and extent of the service connected lumbosacral strain and left eye chalazion. All indicated diagnostic studies, including range of motion studies of the lumbar spine, should be performed. The examiners should also express an opinion as to the relationship between the service-connected disabilities and any other conditions identified on the examinations. 5. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, including if the requested examination does not include all test reports, special studies or opinions requested, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. If after completion of the requested development the benefit sought has not been granted, the veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case, and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The supplemental statement of the case should include a discussion of the issue of entitlement to service connection for residuals of orchitis. Thereafter, following compliance with all other procedures relative to the processing of appeals, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration of any issue for which a valid substantive appeal has been submitted. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice. LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN 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).