BVA9506453 DOCKET NO. 93-16 549 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for recurrent a right ankle sprain. 2. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for fracture residuals of the right clavicle. 3. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for bilateral pes planus. 4. Entitlement to a compensable for chondromalacia of the left knee. 5. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for chondromalacia of the right knee. 6. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for actinic keratosis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. M. Barnard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1970 to January 1972 and from February 1976 to June 1992. This appeal arises from a January 1993 rating decision of the Denver, Colorado, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), which granted service connection for the disabilities noted above, but which assigned each a noncompensable evaluation. A hearing was held in July 1993 in Denver, Colorado, before a member of the Board designated by the Chairman to conduct that hearing, pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(b) (West 1991). It is noted that, during the July 1993 personal hearing, the veteran raised a claim of entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for his service-connected back disorder. However, as this issue is not inextricably intertwined with an issue on appeal, and has not been properly prepared for appellate consideration at this time; it is hereby referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The veteran contends, in essence, that the various disabilities that are the subject of this appeal are more disabling than the current disability evaluation would suggest. He states that he suffers from constant pain in his right shoulder, right ankle, both knees and both feet. He further asserts that his skin condition has spread to other parts of his body and causes itching and the formation of red lesions. Therefore, he believes that greater disability evaluations should be assigned to his disabilities. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all facts pertinent to his claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994). This includes the duty to obtain VA examinations which are an adequate basis upon which to determine entitlement to the benefits sought, as well as the duty to obtain all relevant outpatient treatment records. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1991). VA also has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations which are potentially applicable based upon the assertions and issues raised in the record and to explain the reasons used to support the conclusion. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). These regulations include, but are not limited to, 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, that requires that each disability be viewed in relation to its history and that there be an emphasis placed upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition, and 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 which requires that medical reports be interpreted in light of the whole recorded history, and that each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10 states that, in cases of functional impairment, evaluations are to based upon lack of usefulness, and medical examiners must furnish, in addition to etiological, anatomical, pathological, laboratory and prognostic data required for ordinary medical classification, full description of the effects of the disability upon a person's ordinary activity. This evaluation includes functional disability due to pain under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. These requirements for the evaluation of the complete medical history of the claimant's condition operate to protect claimants against adverse decision based upon a single, incomplete or inaccurate report and to enable VA to make a more precise evaluation of the disability level and any changes in the condition. In the instant case, the veteran was released from active duty in June 1992. He was awarded service connection for a number of disabilities, including those currently on appeal, by a rating action issued in January 1993. The disability evaluations assigned were based solely on the service medical records. While some post-service treatment records were associated with the claims folder, the fact remains that no VA examination is of record. Therefore, there is no competent medical evidence reflecting the current nature and degree of severity of his service-connected disabilities. Since it is necessary to refer this case to the RO for further development, the RO should also obtain copies of the veteran's current outpatient treatment records. Littke, id. Under the circumstances of this case, it is the conclusion of the undersigned that additional assistance is necessary, and this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should contact Evans Army Hospital, Fort Carson, Colorado 80913, and request that they provide copies of the veteran's outpatient treatment records developed between July 1993 and the present. 2. Once the above-requested records have been obtained and associated with the claims file, the RO should afford the veteran VA orthopedic and dermatological examinations in order to fully evaluate the current degree of severity of his disabilities. The orthopedic examiner should describe fully the degree of functional impairment that the veteran experiences in the right shoulder, both knees and feet, and the right ankle. This description should include range of motion studies, expressed in degrees of arc. A complete description of the effects of pain upon his daily activities should also be provided. The dermatology examination should describe the appearance of the veteran's skin, as well as note the areas affected by the actinic keratosis. Color photographs of the affected areas should be obtained. All other indicated special studies should be accomplished. The claims folder must be made available to the examiners prior to the examinations so that the veteran's entire history can be taken into consideration. In the event that the veteran's claims remain denied, in whole or in part, he and his representative should be provided with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and an opportunity to respond, and the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration if otherwise in order. KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR. 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).