Citation Nr: 9827858	
Decision Date: 09/17/98    Archive Date: 09/25/98

DOCKET NO.  95-37 642	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, 
Texas


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of 
removal of the left navicular bone, including metal 
replacement, currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
Inc.


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Jason R. Davitian, Associate Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from April 1953 to October 
1955.

When this case was previously before the Board of Veterans’ 
Appeals (BVA or Board) in March 1997, it was remanded to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in 
Houston, Texas, for additional development.  Pursuant to that 
development, a March 1998 rating decision increased the 
evaluation for the veteran's left wrist disability to 20 
percent, effective June 1995, the dated of receipt of the 
claim.  The case is now before the Board for final appellate 
consideration.


REMAND

In June 1998, the RO received a medical statement from Craig 
N. Bash, M.D., providing an opinion as to the severity of the 
veteran's service-connected left wrist disability. Dr. Bash 
also asserted that the veteran's left wrist disability should 
be evaluated under Diagnostic Code 5053, wrist replacement 
(prosthesis).  The Board notes that the veteran's left wrist 
disability is currently evaluated under Diagnostic Code 5214, 
ankylosis of the wrist.  A waiver of the right to 
readjudication by the RO was not submitted with Dr. Bash’s 
opinion.  In correspondence received by the Board in August 
1998, the veteran's representative stated that the veteran 
did not waive RO jurisdiction.  As a result, the veteran's 
claim for an increased evaluation for left wrist disability, 
along with the newly submitted evidence, must be remanded to 
the RO for initial readjudication.  

Therefore, in order to give the appellant every consideration 
with respect to the present appeal, it is the Board’s opinion 
that further development is necessary.

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action:

In light of the additional pertinent 
evidence submitted by the appellant in 
June 1998, the RO should undertake all 
indicated development.  Then, on the 
basis of all additional evidence, the RO 
should readjudicate the appellant's claim 
of entitlement to an increased evaluation 
for service-connected left wrist 
disability.  In doing so, the RO should 
address Dr. Bash’s opinion as to the 
severity of the veteran's service-
connected left wrist disability, and his 
opinion as to the proper diagnostic code 
under which the disability should be 
evaluated.

If the benefit sought is not granted, where a timely notice 
of disagreement is of record, the appellant and his 
representative should be furnished a supplemental statement 
of the case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to 
respond before the record is returned to the Board for 
further review.

The purpose of the REMAND is to afford the appellant due 
process.  The Board does not intimate any opinion as to the 
merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this 
time.  The appellant is free to submit any additional 
evidence he desires to have considered in connection with his 
current appeal.  No action is required of the appellant until 
he is notified.



		
	U. R. POWELL
	Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

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) 
(1997).
- 2 -