Citation Nr: 1111367 Decision Date: 03/22/11 Archive Date: 04/05/11 DOCKET NO. 09-19 796 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in North Little Rock, Arkansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected right hand fracture, fourth and fifth metacarpal. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Stephen Eckerman, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from August 1992 to February 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North Little Rock, Arkansas, which granted service connection for right hand fracture, fourth and fifth metacarpal, evaluated as noncompensable (0 percent disabling). The Veteran has appealed the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). In a statement, received in September 2010, the Board received notice from the Veteran that he desired to withdraw his appeal concerning the issue of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(b) (2010). Accordingly, this issue is no longer before the Board. In September 2010, the Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing before the undersigned, who is rendering the determination in this claim and was designated by the Chairman of the Board to conduct that hearing, pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(b) (West 2002). A transcript of this proceeding has been included in the claims folder. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The duty to conduct a contemporaneous examination is triggered when the evidence indicates there has been a material change in disability or that the current rating may be incorrect. See Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95, 60 Fed. Reg. 43186 (1995) (a new examination is appropriate when there is an assertion of an increase in severity since the last examination). In this case, a review of the Veteran's transcript from his hearing, held in September 2010, shows that he testified that his right hand symptoms had worsened since his last VA examination (in April 2009). Accordingly, on Remand, the Veteran should be afforded another examination of his right hand fracture, fourth and fifth metacarpal. The appellant is hereby notified that it is the appellant's responsibility to report for the examination, and to cooperate in the development of the case, and that the consequences of failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158 and 3.655 (2010). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity of his service-connected right hand fracture, fourth and fifth metacarpal. The claims files must be made available to the examiner for a review of the Veteran's pertinent medical history. Any necessary diagnostic testing and evaluation should be performed. All clinical manifestations of the right hand fracture, fourth and fifth metacarpal, including symptoms and resulting complications, should be indicated. 2. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the determination remains unfavorable to the appellant, he and his representative should be provided with a SSOC that addresses all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits, to include a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered. The appellant should be given an opportunity to respond to the SSOC. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2010). _________________________________________________ L. M. BARNARD Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (2010).