BVA9501497 DOCKET NO. 90-52 237 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for postoperative residuals of a ruptured disc, and degenerative disease of the lumbosacral spine, currently evaluated 20 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of a gunshot wound of the l shoulder, currently evaluated 20 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for hydronephrosis with dilatation of the left ureter. 4. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability service-connected disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD William Harryman, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from May 1943 to January 1946. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. An April 1989 rating decision denied the veteran increased evaluations for his service-connected low back and kidney disabilities. The for was then rated 10 percent disabling. By a rating decision in July 1990, the RO increased the rating assigned for the back disability to 20 percent disabling. September 1990, a rating decision also denied the veteran a total disability rat the basis of individual unemployability. During the course of this appeal, the has testified at personal hearings before the Board in August 1992 and at the RO October 1993. The case has been remanded by the Board twice for additional development, and was returned to the Board in February 1994. In November 1994, the Board wrote to the veteran and offered him the opportunity appear for another personal hearing before a member of the Board. As explained the veteran, the reason for this was that the member of the Board who conducted prior hearing in August 1992 was no longer employed by the Board and thus would unable to participate in the decision on his appeal. In his response, received Board in early December 1994, the veteran reported that he did not want an addit hearing. REMAND In October and December 1994, the veteran submitted additional material, includi medical records to the Board for review. While this evidence was received more 90 days following the return of the case to the Board for appellate review, the does not contain any indication that the veteran was given notice of the 90-day in which to submit evidence in accord with 38 C.F.R.  20.1304(a) (1993). Therefore, this additional evidence, at least some of which is pertinent, should considered in conjunction with the veteran's appeal. Since RO consideration of evidence, which includes September 1994 radiology reports concerning the veteran kidneys, has not been waived, the evidence must first be reviewed by the RO. 38 C.F.R.  20.1304(c). The Board also notes that the material submitted by the ve shows that he had a scheduled appointment in the urology clinic at the Ann Arbor Michigan, VAMC on January 5, 1995. Records of this scheduled appointment would be pertinent to the appeal, and should be obtained for review. Since the Board's appellate review must be deferred for the reasons expressed ab additional examination of the veteran's disabilities should also be conducted to that the record contains reports of a contemporaneous examination of the veteran service-connected disabilities once the case is returned to the Board for appell review. See Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377 (1994). Accordingly, to ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the veteran in dev the facts pertinent to his claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain all current VA medical records pertaining to treatment of his service-connected disabilities, including records of the January 1995 scheduled visit to the VA urology clinic, and place those records in the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be afforded VA orthopedic, neurology, and urology examinations for evaluation of his service-connected back, left shoulder, and kidney disabilities. The examiners should be asked to describe all manifestations of disability in detail. A social and industrial survey should also be accomplished to elicit the veteran's vocational history and evaluate the effect of his service-connected disabilities on his employability. The claims folder should be made available to the examiners for review before the examinations. 3. After the development requested above has been completed, the RO should again consider the veteran's claims on the basis of all pertinent evidence of record, including the records submitted by the veteran to the Board in October and December 1994, as well as the records compiled as a result of the development specified above. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board in no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The veteran need take no ac until notified. D. C. SPICKLER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L No. 103-271,  6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted bef the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determinatio 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 rema in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the B the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R.  20.1100(b) (1993).