BVA9507205 DOCKET NO. 93-14 116 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of a right foot injury, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.P. Reep, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from November 1982 to October 1985. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a January 1992 rating decision of the Los Angeles, California Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which awarded service connection for residuals of a right foot injury, and assigned a 10 percent rating. Also in that decision, the RO denied service connection for a bilateral knee disorder. REMAND A review of the record reveals that the most recent VA examination of record was conducted in December 1991. A contemporaneous examination is therefore required. We note that the veteran has requested a VA examination by an orthopedist. We also note that the report of the December 1991 VA examination indicates that the veteran's right knee had been drained twice in the previous years, which, it was noted, was probably related to the veteran's right foot dysfunction. The following diagnosis was provided: bilateral knee pain for the past two years, perhaps secondary to abnormal gait. However, it is noted that the veteran did not report to the physician any pre-service history of knee problems, although private medical records reflect treatment on a number of occasions for knee complaints. Nor does it appear that service medical records, reflecting knee treatment, were reviewed. Because the veteran essentially contends that his service- connected right foot disorder caused his limp, this matter should be further developed. In addition, a March 1983 entry in the veteran's service medical records indicates that, while on leave that month, he received treatment for his knee from a civilian doctor. Consequently, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide the name and address of the aforementioned civilian physician who treated him during military service for knee problems. If he provides the name of a physician other than Dennis Inaba, M.D. (who has already provided all pertinent medical records), the RO should attempt to secure any and all pertinent treatment records. All records so obtained should be incorporated into the claims folder. 2. When the above requested records have been assembled, the RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo an orthopedic examination for the purpose of assessing the current status of his service-connected right foot disorder, and determining the current diagnosis and etiology of any knee disorder. All appropriate testing should be conducted; the pertinent results reported. The examiner should verify with the veteran how many days he loses from work each month because of his ankle disorder. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether any disabilities involving the veteran's knees are causally related to his service-connected residuals of a right foot injury. It would be helpful to the Board if the examiner provided detailed reasoning to support his or her conclusions. The veteran's claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to any examination for use in study of the case. 3. The RO should then consider whether the veteran is entitled to the benefits sought on appeal. If either of those benefits remain denied, the veteran should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which contains an explanation of the RO's latest deliberations and a recitation of the newly received evidence. If service connection for a knee disorder is again denied, the supplemental statement of the case should include reference to 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) (1994). The veteran should be afforded the opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of the case. Then the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The veteran need take no action until he is further notified by the RO. The purpose of this remand is to procure additional data. The Board intimates no opinion, either favorable or unfavorable, as to the ultimate outcome warranted in this case. 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) (1994).