BVA9502404 DOCKET NO. 93-19 968 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska THE ISSUE Entitlement to the restoration of a 40 percent rating for limitation of extension, left elbow (major). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. W. Fabian, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from September 1941 to August 1945. REMAND The veteran was afforded a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination in September 1992, at which time extension of the left forearm was noted by the examiner to be 95 degrees. Photographs that were associated with an examination in August 1992 showed an apparent conflict with the examiner's noted range of motion. The VA examiner then provided a revised report that stated the veteran could extend the left elbow to 175 degrees. Based on this examination, a July 1993 rating decision reduced the veteran's evaluation for limitation of extension under Diagnostic Code 5207 from 40 percent to 10 percent, effective October 1993. The ranges of motion of the left forearm should be noted in conformance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate I (1993). Consequently, the medical evidence in file does not provide sufficient information to evaluate the extent of the veteran's disability. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the regional office (RO) for the following actions: 1. After the necessary information and authorization are obtained from the veteran, copies of all treatment records for the veteran's disability of the left elbow, VA or private, inpatient or outpatient, since August 1992, should be obtained by the RO and added to the claims file. 2. After the foregoing has been completed to the extent possible, the veteran should be afforded VA neurological and orthopedic examinations in order to determine the extent of the disability of his left elbow. The physician conducting the neurological examination should be asked to specify the extent and nature of any neurological damage to the veteran's left elbow or forearm, including impairment of motor function, trophic changes, or sensory disturbances and by identifying the specific nerve(s) affected. The neurological examination should be conducted in accordance with Chapter 13 of Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. The physician conducting the orthopedic examination should be asked to conduct the examination in accordance with Chapter 2, Section V of the Physician's Guide and to specify any limitation of motion of the elbow in terms of the degree of arc as demonstrated in Figure 2.1 of the Physician's Guide. Any functional impairment due to pain should also be noted by the examiner. Each examiner should furnish a comprehensive report with a detailed account of any pathology found to be present along with the information requested above. If, after RO review of all of the evidence and pertinent law, including 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 (1993), the decision remains adverse to the veteran, a supplemental statement of the case, which includes all issues for which a notice of disagreement has been filed and which includes all pertinent law and regulations not previously provided to the veteran, should be issued and the veteran and his representative who should be afforded an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, following the usual appellate processing, the case should be returned to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), if in order. The appellant need take no action until notified. M. SABULSKY 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).