BVA9508331 
DOCKET NO.  93-07 362     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit,
Michigan

THE ISSUES

Entitlement to service connection for status post partial medial
meniscectomy and total arthroplasty, right knee.

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for the residuals of a
simple, complete fracture of the proximal third of the right
femur, currently rated 20 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Hilary L. Goodman, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active service from October 1950 to October 1953.

This appeal arises from a March 1991 rating decision which denied
service connection for status post partial medial meniscectomy
and total arthroplasty, right knee, and continued a 20 percent
disability evaluation for the residuals of a simple, complete
fracture of the proximal third of the right femur.

The veteran has contended that he not only injured the right knee
in the 1951 parachute jump in which he fractured his right femur,
but over time, the residuals of the fracture, including atrophy,
weakness and an altered gait, aggravated a right knee disability
to the point that an arthroplasty was required.

The Court of Veterans Appeals (Court), in Allen v. Brown, No. 93-
245 (U.S. Vet. App. March 17, 1995), (copy enclosed), concluded
that, "when aggravation of a veteran's non-service-connected
condition is proximately due to or the result of a service-
connected condition, such veteran shall be compensated for the
degree of disability(but only that degree) over and above the
degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation."  As the
Allen decision was only recently issued by the Court, the
originating agency has not had the opportunity to consider the
veteran's claim for secondary service connection on this basis.

The current record includes an October 1991 statement from the
veteran's surgeon, Mark C. Stewart, M.D.  Dr. Stewart indicates
that he "feel[s] that [the veteran's] parachuting accident led to
his arthritis in his knee."  A Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) physician, in a January 1992 statement, opines that the
injury that caused the right femur fracture did not cause the
medial knee degenerative changes that included the torn meniscus.
The former physician treated the veteran and the latter physician
reviewed the veteran's claims file.

It is herein noted that some of the findings reported in the
November 1990 report of VA examination have been called into
question.  After reviewing the entire record, the Board of
Veterans' Appeals (Board) finds that further development of the
evidence is required. Therefore, the veteran's claims are being
REMANDED for the following action:

1.  The originating agency should, after
obtaining appropriate authorization,
request legible copies of the veteran's
treatment records from Dr. Stewart, as well
as the summary of the veteran's
hospitalization at Bay Medical Center in
August 1990.  All documents obtained should
be associated with the veteran's claims
file.

2.  After completion of the above, the
originating agency should refer the
veteran's claims file to a VA orthopedist.
The orthopedist is requested to review the
veteran's claims file, including the
service medical records, the VA examination
reports, operation reports and other
private medical records and the statements
from the physicians noted above.  The
veteran's lower extremities should then be
examined by this orthopedist.  All
indicated testing should be conducted and
all clinical manifestations should be
reported in detail.  Based on the
examination and a review of the record, the
orthopedist should identify and evaluate
the current residuals of the veteran's
service-connected simple, complete fracture
of the proximal third of the right femur.
The physician should proffer an opinion,
with supporting analysis, as to likelihood
that the veteran's chronic pathology of the
right knee was caused by the parachute jump
injury in service, was due to the residuals
of the right femur fracture or was
increased in severity by the residuals of
the right femur fracture. Reasons and bases
for all conclusions should be provided.

3.  After completion of the above, the
originating agency should review the
veteran's case by considering all the
evidence of record and the Allen case noted
above. If any determination made is
unfavorable to the veteran, a supplemental
statement of the case that sets forth the
evidence received since the February 1992
supplemental statement of the case should
be provided to the veteran and his
representative.

After allowing the veteran and his representative the appropriate
period of time in which to respond to the supplemental statement
of the case, the veteran's case should be returned to the Board
for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order.  The
purpose of this REMAND is to secure clarifying information and
ensure due process.  No action is required on the part of the
veteran until he receives further notice.

          WAYNE M. BRAEUER
          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) (1994).