BVA9504926 DOCKET NO. 93-14 724 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for hypertension with sinus bradycardia, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for postoperative status, right inguinal hernia. 3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for defective hearing with tinnitus. 4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for renal hematuria. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. O'Brien, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from March 1940 to April 1962. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. A review of the evidence of the record discloses the veteran was examined by VA in June 1991. At the time of this examination, the veteran's blood pressure readings were 170/85, 170/80 and 180/85. It was indicated that his hypertension was controlled with medication. However, in a communication dated in February 1992, Rashad Ansari, M.D., stated he had been following the veteran since February 1987 for disabilities which included severe hypertension. Dr. Ansari reported that over the course of the past four years, the veteran's blood pressure had been progressively more severe and had required several adjustments in medication. The physician noted that despite an aggressive medication regimen, the veteran's blood pressure was not well controlled, and in April 1991, he added Hytrin. Also of record is a February 1992 communication from Jerry D. Colling, M.D., who reported examinations of the veteran in 1991 and 1992. On examination in February 1992, Dr. Colling stated the veteran had no physical complaints or disabilities, except for arthritis in the hands. The veteran's blood pressure on examination at that time was recorded as 140/70. A more current examination is desirable in order to reconcile these contrasting pictures of the veteran's hypertensive status. With regards to the other disabilities at issue, the veteran testified at his RO hearing in February 1992, that he had not been accorded any tests or studies for his renal hematuria for many years. The veteran also stated that he underwent a complete physical examination at least once a year. However, there is no medical evidence of record subsequent to early 1992. In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers who have treated him for the disabilities at issue since 1992 and specify the approximate dates of treatment, if possible. Then, after any necessary authorization is obtained from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of any treatment records identified by the veteran. Of particular interest are any records subsequent to February 1992 from Rashad Ansari, M.D., 2023 West Vista Way H, Vista, California 92083, and any records from Jerry D. Colling, M.D., 2201 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, California 92054, since February 1992. 2. Thereafter, VA audiological, cardiovascular and genitourinary examinations should be arranged to determine the extent and severity of the veteran's various service-connected disabilities. The examinations should be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations (1985). All testing deemed appropriate by each examiner should be accomplished. The audiometric examiner should review pertinent service medical records, particularly the 1961 Consultation Sheets which reflect a history of old injury to the right ear resulting in partial deafness and complaints of tinnitus. The audiometric examiner should express an opinion as to the probability of any relationship between acoustic trauma alleged in service and tinnitus. The claims folder must be made available to each examiner for review prior to the examinations. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the claims for increased ratings. If the benefits sought are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued and he should be provided with the applicable time period in which to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is 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) (1994).