BVA9502760 DOCKET NO. 93 08 298 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine, currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of a fracture and surgical repair of the left wrist (minor) with traumatic arthritis and pain, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for a scar on the left elbow, postoperative surgical release for epicondylitis. 4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for a scar on the right elbow, postoperative surgical release for epicondylitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Fleet Reserve Association WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. O'Brien, Counsel REMAND The veteran had periods of active service from April 1964 to March 1966 and from July 1973 to January 1991. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. At the time of a personal hearing conducted before a hearing officer at the RO in July 1992, the veteran testified that the examination accorded him by VA in October 1991 was inadequate. He stated that his service-connected back disability was not examined and only cursory examinations were done of the left wrist and the elbows. He indicated he was not accorded any neurological testing, to include nerve conduction studies. The report of the examination does not contain any reference to the veteran's back symptomatology. Also at the hearing the veteran testified he was working in Germany and was seeing a doctor in Germany primarily for prescription refills. No information from that physician is of record. He indicated he would be returning from Germany in late 1992 or early 1993, but then might be going to Norway. A September 1992 rating decision reflected that a future physical examination was to be accorded the veteran in March 1993. However, it appears this examination was not accomplished. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991), the VA's duty to assist a veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support a claim includes obtaining an adequate and contemporaneous VA examination. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that further medical development is warranted and 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 his service-connected disabilities at any time since service discharge in 1991, specifying the approximate dates of treatment if possible. Then, after any necessary authorization is obtained from him, the RO should obtain copies of those treatment records identified by the veteran. This is to include any treatment the veteran might have received overseas. 2. If the veteran was accorded an examination by VA in March 1993, the report of that examination should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. If not, the RO should arrange for VA orthopedic and neurologic examinations for the purpose of determining the current nature and extent of impairment attributable to each of the veteran's service-connected disabilities. All indicated studies should be performed. The veteran's claims folder should be made available to each examiner prior to examination. 3. Then, in light of the evidence obtained pursuant to the requested development, the RO should readjudicate the issues listed on the title page. Thereafter, if the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, he and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the applicable period of time in which to respond. Then, the case should 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) (1993).