BVA9502149 DOCKET NO. 91-37 359 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for headache disability, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for hypertension, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy, currently rated as 50 percent disabling. 4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for hemorrhoids. 5. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a left breast mass. 6. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for bronchitis. 7. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for postoperative abdominal adhesions. 8. Entitlement to service connection for disability manifested by musculoskeletal and abdominal pain. 9. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of removal of an intrauterine device. 10. Entitlement to service connection for pelvic inflammatory disease, vaginitis, and yeast infection. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nancy S. Kettelle, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from November 1979 to March 1989. This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama. The Board last remanded the case to the RO in March 1994. At that time the Board noted that in statements received at the RO in June and September 1993, the veteran reported that she had received, or was seeking, treatment for a ganglion cyst on her left wrist, hair loss, skin rash, ingrown toenails, hypothyroidism, and dental problems. It was noted that it was not clear whether the veteran was raising claims for service connection or for medical and dental treatment, and the Board notes that the requested clarification has not been forthcoming from the veteran. The Board again suggests that the appellant should provide the RO with clarification concerning these matters, and the RO should respond appropriately to any clarification provided. It is also again noted that the RO deferred action concerning the veteran's claimed bilateral knee injury during a VA hospitalization. REMAND In March 1994, the Board remanded the case to the RO for certain special examinations and also requested that the RO advise the veteran of a March 1993 rating decision in which the RO denied entitlement to a total rating based on unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. In addition, the Board requested that the RO obtain and associate with the claims file all hospital summaries and outpatient treatment records for the veteran from VA medical facilities in Mobile, Alabama, and Biloxi, Mississippi, dated from June 1992 to include any statement concerning the veteran's ability to perform work- related activities that may have been provided by the VA Outpatient Clinic in Mobile, Alabama. The RO was also requested to determine whether the Social Security Administration has adjudicated the veteran's claim for Social Security disability benefits and, if so, was requested to obtain a copy of the decision and a copy of the record upon which the decision was based. In addition, the RO was to contact the veteran and request that she identify any other health care providers from whom she had received treatment for her service-connected disabilities, and that with authorization from the veteran, the RO attempt to obtain those records in addition to records from William Fleet, M.D., from whom she had reportedly received treatment for headaches since November 1992. After the March 1994 remand, the requested VA examinations were performed, some VA medical records were obtained, and the RO requested information from the Social Security Administration and the veteran. The RO returned one volume of the veteran's three- volume claims file to the Board in October 1994. Having recently obtained the other volumes of the claims file, the Board has determined that completion of requested development has not been documented by the RO, and the claims file includes neither a rating decision nor a Supplemental Statement of the Case addressing evidence that has been added to the record since the Board's March 1994 remand. Due process requires that these procedures be followed. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (1993). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should advise the veteran of the March 1993 rating decision denying a total rating based on unemployability due to service-connected disabilities and of her appellate rights with respect to that denial. 2. The RO should attempt to obtain and associate with the claims file recent treatment records for the veteran from VA medical facilities in Mobile, Alabama, and Biloxi, Mississippi. These should include treatment records dated from May 1994 to the present, along with any statement concerning the veteran's ability to perform work-related activities that may have been provided by the VA Outpatient Clinic in Mobile, Alabama. 3. The RO should document the status of its request for information from the Social Security Administration. If a claim for Social Security disability benefits has been adjudicated for the veteran, the RO should obtain a copy of the decision and a copy of the record upon which the decision was based. 4. The RO should document the status of its request for additional information from the veteran concerning medical treatment she may have received from private health care providers for claimed disabilities. 5. Thereafter, in light of the evidence obtained pursuant to the requested development and all other material, including VA treatment records and reports of VA examinations, added to the record since the most recent rating decision and Supplemental Statement of the Case (both dated in March 1993), the RO should readjudicate each of the veteran's increased rating and service connection claims listed on the title page. If a timely Notice of Disagreement with the disposition of the total rating claim is received or if otherwise appropriate, the RO should readjudicate the issue of entitlement to a total rating based on unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. 6. If any of the benefits sought on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction or if a timely Notice of Disagreement is received with respect to any other matter, including the disposition of the total rating claim, the RO should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case for all issues in appellate status, and the veteran and her representative should be provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran unless she is otherwise notified by the RO. SHANE A. DURKIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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).