BVA9505931 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 183     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri

THE ISSUES

1.  An increased disability rating for traumatic arthritis of the
lumbosacral spine and right sacroiliac joint, currently evaluated
as 40 percent disabling.

2.  An increased disability rating for traumatic arthritis of the
right ankle, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

3.  Whether new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the
appellant's claim for service connection for arthritis of the
right hip has been submitted.

4.  Service connection for arthritis of multiple joints.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and spouse

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Barry F. Bohan, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The appellant served on active duty in the United States Army
from October 1942 to March 1945.

In April 1945, service connection was granted for chronic
arthritis of multiple joints, with chronic lumbosacral
arthralgia.  A 20 percent disability rating was assigned.  In a
January 1947 rating decision, the service connected disability
was re-classified as traumatic arthritis of the right lumbosacral
and sacroiliac joint and traumatic arthritis of the right ankle
with 3/4 inch shortening of the right leg.  A 30 percent
disability rating was assigned.  In a March 1987 rating decision,
separate disability evaluations were assigned for traumatic
arthritis of the lumbosacral and right sacroiliac joint (40
percent disabling) and for traumatic arthritis of the right ankle
with 3/4 inch shortening of the right leg (10 percent disabling).

In April 1983, the appellant was denied service connection for
degenerative arthritic changes of the right hip with total hip
arthroplasty by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional
Office in St. Louis, Missouri (VARO).  The appellant was informed
of the denial of service connection in a December 1983 letter
from VARO.  He did not appeal that decision within one year.

In October 1991, the appellant requested that his claim be
reopened.  In an April 1992 rating decision, VARO confirmed the
previously assigned disability ratings for the appellant's two
service-connected disabilities; continued to deny service
connection for the appellant's right hip disorder; and denied
service connection for generalized degenerative arthritis (as
opposed to post-traumatic) arthritis.  This appeal followed.

REMAND

The appellant is seeking increased disability ratings for his two
service-connected disabilities, traumatic arthritis of the low
back and traumatic arthritis of the right ankle with shortening
of the right leg.  He also desires service connection for
arthritis of his right hip, to include a February 1982 total hip
replacement, and for degenerative arthritis of multiple joints.

The appellant fractured his right tibia in March 1937, before
service.  He was discharged from military service in March 1945
due to residuals of that fracture and also due to arthritis of
the right foot and arthralgia of the lumbosacral spine.  After
service, he complained of pain and weakness in the area of his
right foot and in his low back.  In 1966, arthritis of the right
hip was diagnosed.  In 1978, arthritis was identified in the
knees, the left hip and the left ankle.  A VA examiner in
December 1978 stated that he did not believe that the appellant's
right hip arthritis was the outcome of trauma.  A total right hip
arthroplasty was done in February 1982.

With respect to the issue of service connection for arthritis of
the appelant's right hip, he contends, in substance, that his
right hip disorder was caused by his service-connected disorders,
in particular the shortening of the right leg.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310
(1994).  His representative has pointed to 38 C.F.R. 4.58 (1994)
as supporting the proposition that the shortening of a leg may
cause arthritis to develop in the same lower extremity.

The Board notes that there is an inconsistency in the way the
last issue has been framed.  In the July 1992 Statement of the
Case, the issue was listed as service connection for arthritis of
multiple joints.  However, in the Supplemental Statements of the
Case in November 1992 and in March 1993, the issue was listed as
whether new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the
appellant's claim for service connection for arthritis of
multiple joints had been submitted.  That issue was certified for
appeal in May 1993.  There is nothing of record, however, which
indicates that there is a prior final decision concerning the
issue of service connection for degenerative arthritis of
multiple joints.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§
3.104(a) (1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302, 20.1103 (1994).  In the
interest of fairness to the appellant, therefore, the Board
believes that this issue should be remanded to VARO for
clarification and readjudication.

The Board further notes that the appellant contends that his
service-connected traumatic arthritis has "spread" to other
joints.  Since he will be scheduled for an examination by a
specialist in orthopedics, the Board will seek the advice of that
specialist as to the merit of the appellant's contention.

The Board believes that further development of the evidence, to
include an examination by a specialist in orthopedics, is
necessary in this case.  Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221
(1991).  The case is therefore REMANDED to VARO for the following
action:

The appellant should be scheduled for an
examination by a specialist in orthopedics.
The appellant's claims folder should be
furnished to the examiner for review prior
to the examination.  The examiner should
render a specific opinion concerning
whether the appellant's right hip
disability is due to or is proximately
related to his service-connected traumatic
arthritis and in particular to his
shortened right leg.  The orthopedic
examiner should further comment on the
appellant's contention that his service
connected traumatic arthritis of the
lumbosacral spine and right ankle has
"spread" to other joints.  The report of
the examination should be associated with
the appellant's claims folder.

After the above development has been completed, VARO should
readjudicate the appellant's claim.  The issue of service
connection for arthritis of multiple joints should be adjudicated
without regard to the alleged finality of any prior decision.  If
the claim remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board
after compliance with all requisite appellate procedure.  The
purpose of this REMAND is to procure clarifying data and to
satisfy due process requirements.  The Board intimates no opinion
as to the ultimate conclusion warranted, pending completion of the
requested development.  No action is necessary on the appellant's
part until he receives further notice.

          KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR.
          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).