BVA9504444 DOCKET NO. 93-08 550 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for left ear otitis media. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 3. Entitlement to service connection for tinea versicolor and tinea pedis. 4. Entitlement to an increased rating for traumatic cataract, right eye, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. 5. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for right eye esotropia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michele M. Florack, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from January 1945 to June 1946. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from May 1991, November 1991, and September 1992 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New Orleans, Louisiana. Service connection for tinnitus was denied by rating action in September 1992, and the veteran filed a notice of disagreement and a substantive appeal. However, no statement of the case or supplemental statement of the case has included that issue. Thus, that issue is referred to the RO for the appropriate development. REMAND The Board finds that the veteran's claims are "well grounded" or plausible within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The VA therefore has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103, 3.159 (1993). That duty includes obtaining medical records and medical examinations where indicated by the facts and circumstances of the case. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). Service connection was granted for tinea cruris and denied for tinea versicolor and tinea pedis by rating action in September 1992. The veteran's representative contends that all of the veteran's fungal infection should be service connected since various fungal infections cannot be disassociated from each other. Alternatively, the representative requests that a medical opinion be sought to resolve the question. In addition, the representative has raised the issues of service connection for onychomycosis and seborrheic dermatitis, and service connection for the veteran's skin disorders, as secondary to his service- connected tinea cruris. In addition, the representative has raised the issue of service connection for glaucoma. These issues are inextricably intertwined with some of the issues that are currently before the Board. Therefore, these additional issues must be adjudicated by the RO before the Board can proceed with consideration of the veteran's appeal. In that this case is the subject of a remand, the Board finds that the latest VA examinations of record, dated in 1992, will not be sufficiently current for rating purposes by the time the case is returned to the Board. In addition, the Board also notes that the claims file contains no records, medical or adjudicative, for the period 1968 to 1980. To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO, after obtaining the necessary information and authorization from the veteran, should attempt to locate any records for the period 1968 to 1980, and any other pertinent records identified by the veteran, pertaining to the veteran's claims for otitis media, hearing loss, skin disorders and glaucoma. 2. The RO should schedule the veteran for a complete dermatological examination, including the identification of all currently existing skin disorders. If tinea pedis, tinea versicolor, or any other fungal disorder is found, the examiner should be asked to comment on the following: Could the service-connected skin disorder, tinea cruris, be proximately related to or the cause of any other skin disorders found? If not, can the service- connected tinea cruris reasonably be disassociated from any other skin disorder(s) found? The complete rationale for any opinion should be explained. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. 3. The RO should schedule the veteran for an opthalmological examination to determine the current nature and severity of the veteran's right eye disorders, traumatic cataract and esotropia. All necessary tests should be performed and photographs taken to reveal the extent of the disfigurement of the veteran, if any. 4. When the above-requested development is completed, the case should again be reviewed by the RO. The RO should adjudicate the veteran's claims for service connection for onychomycosis and seborrheic dermatitis, secondary service connection for the veteran's skin disorders, and service connection for glaucoma. If the veteran's claims remain denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished with pertinent appellate rights and an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, including the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. After they have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying data and fulfill due process requirements. The appellant need take no action until otherwise notified. WILLIAM J. REDDY 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).