92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-29590 Y92 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 92-04 372 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for optic atrophy, right eye, secondary to trauma with loss of superior visual field, currently assigned a 10 percent rating. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a laceration scar of the right forehead, assigned a 10 percent rating. 3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for status postoperative, fracture of the left orbital rim. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. L. Kennedy, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1962 to July 1971. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). In a November 1990 rating action, service connection was granted for all of the disabilities at issue in this case with the disability percentages assigned as outlined on the title page. The notice of disagreement for these disability percentages was received by the RO in August 1991. The statement of the case was issued in January 1992. The substantive appeal was received in February 1992. The case was transferred at the Board, and received and docketed in April 1992. The veteran has been represented throughout this appeal by Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, who submitted additional written argument to the Board in August 1992. REMAND The Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1991). Included in this duty is the authority to request a reexamination where it is determined that the current clinical findings are incomplete or inadequate upon which to base a decision. See Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 401 (1991); Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991). In August 1990, the veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and extent of the disabilities at issue in this case. However, in connection with his claim for increased evaluations for optic atrophy and for a fracture of the left orbital rim, it appears that examinations afforded the veteran are not of sufficient specificity as to evaluate these disabilities. In this regard, we find that the examinations provided did not address all possible residuals of the disabilities in question, particularly with respect to corrected visual acuity and visual field of the right eye, the presence or absence of diplopia or scars, and/or any pertinent nerve involvement. As such, we find the August 1990 examination to be inadequate with respect to these issues. Therefore, in order to ensure a complete and adequate record, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. Corrected visual acuity of the right eye should be determined and the field of vision of that eye should be plotted, using the Goldmann bowl perimeter and target III 4e. If there are impairments of both visual acuity and of visual field, the claims folder should be referred to the Director, Compensation and Pension Service for evaluation of visual efficiency, in accordance with M21-1, Part VI, § 7.09f. 2. The veteran should be afforded a complete VA examination of his left orbital rim to determine the residuals, if any, of his service-connected fracture of the left orbital rim, postoperative open reduction. All indicated special studies, including X-ray studies, should be accomplished. The subjective complaints and objective findings, including the presence of any neurological deficit and a description of any scar formation, should be reported in detail. If any diplopia deemed to be a residual of the fracture is found it should be evaluated in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.77. 3. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination for use in studying the case. The examination report should be typed or otherwise recorded in a legible manner for review purposes. When the aforementioned development has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO, with consideration of all the evidence of record to determine whether the veteran's claim may now be granted. If the benefit sought with respect to this issue is granted or denied, the record should still be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration of the remaining issues on appeal. This is to be done after compliance with prescribed procedures for the processing of appeals, including a supplemental statement of the case which contains a summary of the additional evidence presented, citations of the applicable laws and regulations, and the reasons for the decision. The veteran and his representative should be afforded an opportunity to respond thereto. The purpose of this REMAND is to ensure that the veteran is afforded due process of law and to procure additional medical data. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice. The Board intimates no opinion either factual or legal, as to the determination warranted in this case by reason thereof. Decision on the issue of laceration scar of the right forehead is deferred pending completion of the development as requested herein. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * (MEMBER TEMPORARILY ABSENT) HARRY M. McALLISTER, M.D. J. U. JOHNSON (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) *38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. 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. 57 Fed. Reg. 4126 (1992) (to be codified as 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)).