BVA9506126 DOCKET NO. 93-15 065 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for Meniere's syndrome. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark J. Swiatek, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active duty from October 1971 to November 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 1991 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. Service connection has been established for residuals, left tympanoplasty, right ear hearing loss and perforation of the right tympanic membrane. It is asserted that Meniere's syndrome is related to the traumatic tympanic membrane perforation. The Board observes that the veteran's claim for service connection of Meniere's syndrome apparently has been adjudicated without benefit of comprehensive evaluation. A VA audiology examiner in January 1991 recommended electronystagmography to rule in or out Meniere's syndrome. In November 1991, the RO requested a VA medical facility to schedule the veteran for an examination, noting that an electronystagmography to rule in or out Meniere's syndrome had been recommended at the January 1991 examination. On examination in May 1992, the examiner gave an impression of benign positional vertigo and recommended that the veteran have an EMG to document whether or not he was having vertiginous episodes upon changing the position of his head. The examiner also stated that neurological consultation would be helpful. Neither was obtained. In January 1994 argument to the Board, the representative requested that the case be returned to the RO so that all tests and examinations deemed necessary can be accomplished. In view of the foregoing, and 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, it is the opinion of the Board that additional development, as set forth below, is desirable. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the veteran for any ear disorder since service. After securing the necessary release, the RO should obtain copies of all records identified which are not already of record. 2. The veteran should then be afforded examination by appropriate specialists to rule in or out Meniere's disease. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner(s) for review before the examination. The scope of the examination, by one or several contributing physicians, should be broad enough to cover all diseases and residual conditions which are suggested by review of pertinent data in the claims folder and which are suggested by the veteran's complaints and findings at the time of examination. Any special studies deemed necessary, such as electronystagmography, and any consul- tations by specialists, such as a neurologist, should be conducted. If Meniere's syndrome is present, the exam- iner(s) should be requested to render an opinion, with supporting rationale, as to the degree of probability, if any, that Meniere's syndrome is related to the ear complaints reported during service or to the service-connected tympanic membrane perforations. 3. Thereafter, in light of the additional evidence obtained, the RO should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the satisfaction of the veteran, a supplemental statement of the case addressing all issues in appellate status should then be prepared and furnished to the veteran and his representative. They should be provided the applicable period in which to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with the proper appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. GARY L. GICK 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 deter- mination. 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, (1994) and 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).