BVA9500761 DOCKET NO. 93-03 346 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen claims for service connection for gastric and duodenal ulcers, a hiatal hernia and gastroesophageal reflux. Entitlement to an increased rating for a psychophysiologic gastrointestinal reaction, rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Marshall O. Potter, Jr., Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1963 to March 1967. In September 1989, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the veteran's claims for service connection for gastric and duodenal ulcers with a hiatal hernia and gastroesophageal reflux. In January 1992, the veteran submitted an application to reopen the claims for service connection for the foregoing disabilities and also sought an increased rating for his service-connected psychophysiologic gastrointestinal reaction. This appeal is from the June 1992 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Waco, Texas, Regional Office (RO) decision that denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his psychophysiologic gastrointestinal reaction disorder. Also appealed is the November 1992 RO decision that denied his application to reopen his claims for service connection for gastric and duodenal ulcers, a hiatal hernia and gastroesophageal reflux. REMAND The record reflects that the veteran was treated for a gastrointestinal illness during service. After service, when he first filed a claim for service connection for his stomach problem, he indicated that he had been treated by Dr. Pearl of The Kaiser Foundation from 1970 to 1972 and by Dr. Guasch at a VA hospital. He also said that he had been treated on other occasions, but it appears that the RO has attempted to obtain these records. However, it does not appear that the RO has tried to obtain information from the individuals identified above. As to the increased rating claim, the record reflects that the veteran has undergone outpatient treatment, but a rating examination, designed to determine the severity of his gastrointestinal disorder, has not been conducted in recent years. The veteran has appears to have submitted well-grounded claims. As such, VA has a duty to assist him in developing the facts pertinent to those claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1993). This duty to assist includes obtaining all relevant medical records and obtaining a special examination when warranted by the circumstances. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers (VA as well as non-VA) who have rendered treatment for his service-connected disability. After proper authorization has been obtained, the RO should contact each provider and obtain copies of the medical reports. 2. After this information has been obtained and associated with the claims file, the veteran should be scheduled for special VA psychiatric and gastrointesti- nal examinations in order to determine the nature and severity of his service- connected disability. All indicated tests should be conducted. The claims folder must be made available to the examiners for review. The examinations should be performed in accordance with the VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (March 1985) and should include detailed descriptions of all pertinent manifes-tations found. The examiners should state whether it is at least as likely as not that the gastrointestinal complaints reported in service represented the onset of a chronic gastrointestinal illness as opposed to a psychophysiologic gastrointestinal disorder. The examiners should also indicate the extent of functional impairment caused by the disorder(s). The rationale for any opinions should be supported. If the veteran continues to be dissatisfied with the RO's decision, he and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and be given an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. M. CHEEK 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).