BVA9506264 DOCKET NO. 93-09 608 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of frozen feet, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation purposes based upon individual unemployability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert P. Regan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from March 1943 to November 1945. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of June and September 1992 rating determinations by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in Columbia, South Carolina. In the former rating decision, the RO denied an increase in the disability rating assigned his service-connected frozen feet. In the latter, the RO denied his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. REMAND Initially, the Board has found that the appellant's claims are well grounded pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991) in that his claims are plausible or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). This finding is based on the appellant's evidentiary assertions that his service-connected disabilities prevent him from working, and that his bilateral frozen feet have increased in severity. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 629 (1992). Once it has been determined that the claim is well grounded, the VA has the statutory duty to assist the appellant in the development of evidence pertinent to that claim. During the appellant's April 1993 hearing in Columbia, South Carolina, he indicated that he was last hospitalized by the VA from December to February for surgical correction of problems associated with his bilateral frozen feet. It is unclear as to whether he was referring to a period of hospitalization beginning in December 1991 or December 1992. A December 1991 to February 1992 hospital report is of record. That hospital summary shows that the appellant underwent debridement of an ulcer involving the right lower extremity (right lateral ankle) with a split- thickness skin graft to the area. The available record further reflects that the appellant has not undergone a VA medical examination of the residuals of his frozen feet for compensation purposes since 1984. In accordance with the statutory duty to assist the appellant in the development of evidence pertinent to his claim, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain any additional medical records not already of record from the VA medical facilities located in Columbia and Greenville, South Carolina, subsequent to February 2, 1992, up to the present. 2. The appellant should be afforded a VA social and industrial survey to assess his day-to-day functioning and to determine to what degree the appellant's service- connected bilateral frozen feet and hearing impairment preclude him from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment. It is requested that the examiner contact an appropriate official at Pughsley Pharmacy, in Laurens, South Carolina, (the appellant's former employer) in order to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the appellant's termination of that employment after more than 20 continuous years on the job. A written copy of the report should be inserted into the claims folder. 3. A VA medical examination should be conducted by a specialist in circulatory/vascular disorders, if available, in order to determine the nature and severity of the appellant's service- connected bilateral frozen feet. All testing deemed necessary should be performed. The examiner should be requested to give an opinion as to the severity of the appellant's residuals of frozen feet, and determine the extent to which this disability adversely impacts his employability. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination. Thereafter, the case should be reviewed by the RO, including consideration of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b) and 4.16(b) (1994). If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case. The appellant and his representative should be given an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. J.F. GOUGH 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).