BVA9500058 DOCKET NO. 93-06 537 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of a fracture of the left lateral malleolus, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for the residuals of an injury to the ring finger of the left hand. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Carolyn Wiggins, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had verified active duty for training from January 1982 to July 1982 and other periods of active duty for training which are presently unverified. This appeal arises from a November 1990 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. REMAND The claims folder contains a letter from the RO to the veteran dated in January 1993 which states that they are arranging for the veteran to be examined. A computer generated notice also dated in January 1993 notes that the "patient fail to report." Evidence in the claims file does not clearly indicate that the veteran was actually sent a notification to report for the examination. He has not been given a VA examination for compensation purposes since February 1988, and the medical evidence currently on file is not adequate to rate the disabilities at issue. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that when evaluating a veteran for an increased evaluation the veteran must be provided with a contemporaneous examination. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377 (1994). VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). The Court has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining pertinent evidence that applies to all relevant facts. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). This duty also includes providing additional examinations by a specialists when recommended or indicated. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). In addition, the statements of the case do not include the criteria for rating the ankle disability. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain copies of all treatment records which date from December 1991 to the present time from the VA Medical Center, San Juan. 2. The RO should obtain the names and addresses of any other medical care providers who treated the veteran for residuals of a fracture of the left lateral malleus and residuals of an injury to the left ring finger since December 1991. After securing the necessary releases, the RO should obtain these records. 3. The veteran should then be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and severity of the residuals of a fracture of the left lateral malleus and residuals of an injury to the left ring finger. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. The examination should include range of motion studies in accordance with the Physician's Guide. 4. The RO should arrange for translation, from Spanish to English, of the following documents: Statement in Support of Claim VA Form 21-4138 dated "12 DIC 91", Statement in Support of Claim VA Form 21-4138 dated 7/16/91, and a handwritten note from the veteran on a letter from the RO dated January 19, 1990. 5. Following completion of the above actions, the case should be reviewed by the RO. If the benefits sought remain denied, the veteran and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case which includes the criteria for rating the left ankle disability, and given the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. NANCY I. PHILLIPS 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).