93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-20002 Y93 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 92-14 570 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostatitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for lung disease. 3. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Lisa K. Holliday INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Board on appeal from an October 1991 rating decision of the Denver, Colorado, regional office (hereinafter RO), which awarded a 10 percent disability rating for a service- connected back disability and denied entitlement to service connection for prostatitis and for lung disease. The notice of disagreement was received on December 5, 1991, a statement of the case was issued on February 26, 1992, and the substantive appeal was received on March 30, 1992. The appeal was received by the Board on August 17, 1992, and docketed two days later. The appellant has been represented during his appeal by the Disabled American Veterans, who submitted additional written testimony to the Board on November 25, 1992. This case is not yet ready for appellate review. The appellant had active service from August 1953 to July 1957, and from August 1961 to October 1989. REMAND The veteran contends that the RO clearly erred in its decision not to grant him a higher evaluation for his service-connected back disorder, which, he maintains, is far worse than the current rating indicates. In addition, he requests that service connection be granted for prostatitis which he claims to have incurred initially in service, and for a lung disease which, he states, has worsened since service discharge. A review of the record reveals that the veteran was last afforded a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination in August 1991. At that time, status post surgery of the back three times for ruptured disks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, shortness of breath, and chronic prostate problems were diagnosed. In his March 1992 substantive appeal (VA 1-9) form, the veteran referred to a March 1992 visit to the VA Hospital in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and also indicated that he was scheduled to be examined on April 23, 1992, by the Urology department of the Cheyenne VA Hospital. In the July 1992 VA 646 form, it was noted by the veteran's representative that the foregoing medical records had not yet been obtained and included in the file. Additionally, in the November 1992 Informal Hearing Presentation, it was observed that no range of motion studies were performed during the orthopedic portion of the August 1991 VA rating examination. The veteran and his representative have requested that these studies be performed prior to rendering a decision as to the severity of his back disorder. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that additional medical development is required prior to final appellate disposition of the case. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should request complete copies of all medical records pertaining to the March 1992 and April 1992 VA examinations at the Cheyenne, Wyoming VA Medical Center. Once obtained, these reports should be incorporated into the claims folder for the remainder of the veteran's appeal. 2. The RO should schedule the veteran for special VA orthopedic, genitourinary and pulmonary examinations in accordance with the criteria and procedures set forth in Chapters 2, 5, and 8 of the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All special tests, examinations, X-rays, and studies, including range of motion studies of the veteran's back, deemed necessary by the examiners should be performed in order to determine the nature and extent of the veteran's back, prostate, and lung disabilities. The claims folder and copies of the veteran's inservice and post service medical reports should be made available to the examiners for review prior to examination. Thereafter, a report of the medical findings and conclusions should be incorporated into the claims folder. 3. If, after review of the additional evidence, the decision of the RO remains adverse to the veteran, a supplemental statement of the case should be furnished the veteran and his representative, and they should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The record should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The appellant need not take any action until he is so informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to ensure due process and to obtain additional clarifying medical evidence. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 W. H. YEAGER, JR., M.D. C. P. RUSSELL JACK W. BLASINGAME 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.