BVA9505392 DOCKET NO. 93-11 796 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Darryl A. Joe, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran had active duty from September 1955 to August 1961. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a September 1991 rating decision by the Wichita, Kansas Regional Office (RO), which denied the veteran's claims seeking entitlement to service connection for hypertension and bilateral hearing loss. Subsequently, at the veteran's request, his claims folder was transferred to the VARO in Denver, Colorado, which affirmed the prior determinations. On March 16, 1993, the veteran appeared and presented testimony at a hearing conducted by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hearing officer and held at the RO. On that occasion, the veteran, for the first time since he filed his initial claim for service connection for hypertension and bilateral hearing loss, explained the alleged circumstances resulting in the development of the above-cited disorders during his active service. Subsequent to the hearing, the VA hearing officer issued a decision in April 1993. Neither the veteran nor his accredited service representative was issued a supplemental statement of the case following the hearing officer's decision. The pertinent VA regulation provides that a supplemental statement of the case is required following a hearing on appeal before field personnel when evidence in the form of oral testimony. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (1993). Since the veteran's statements during the March 1993 hearing constituted testimonial evidence, and not merely argument, a supplemental statement of the case should have been furnished to the veteran and his representative. Accordingly, the above procedure must be satisfied before we can proceed. The Board also notes, with respect to the claim for hypertension, that a single borderline blood pressure reading of 124/90 was recorded at the time of the discharge examination. Another borderline reading of 130/90 was measured in September 1963, with a recorded history of high blood pressure in the Navy. Elevated readings were recorded on a few subsequent occasions in the 1960's. During hospitalization in a private facility in 1966, following an automobile accident, the veteran was prescribed medication, which reportedly brought his hypertension down. Other records show that hypertensive cardiovascular disease was not diagnosed until 1974. The veteran has testified that he began treatment for hypertension in the 1960's, although there were times that he could not afford to purchase the medication and so did without. The facts of this case raise the possibility that the onset of hypertension was during his military service. Securing a medical opinion in this regard would be beneficial, prior to appellate review. In this regard, it is noted that the VA examiner did not have the claims folder available at the time of the 1991 examination. The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the (RO) for the following development: 1. The veteran should be provided a VA examination by a cardiovascular specialist. Prior to such examination, the veteran's claims folder be made available to the physician for review. That examiner is requested to provide an opinion on the question of whether it is as likely as not that the single, borderline blood pressure reading recorded at separation from service represented the onset of hypertension, for which the veteran appears to have received some treatment in the mid-1960's and which was not definitively diagnosed until 1974. It would be helpful to the Board if the examining physician would set forth supporting rationale for the opinion reached. 2. After this action has been accomplished, the RO should again review the claim and determine whether service connection is in order for hypertension. 3. The veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case, which addresses the issue of service connection for hearing loss, as well as for hypertension, in the event further adjudicatory action requested above remains unfavorable to him. The supplemental statement of the case should contain a discussion and analysis of the sworn testimony presented by the veteran during the March 1993 hearing on appeal, any evidence newly developed as a result of this remand action and recitation of all pertinent laws and regulations. They should be given the appropriate period of time within which to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified. The purpose of this REMAND is to further develop the record and to afford due process of law. N. R. ROBIN 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).