BVA9407145 DOCKET NO. 92-00 270 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to special monthly pension benefits based on the need for regular aid and attendance. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Susan S. Toth, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1942 to October 1945. This matter arises from a rating decision of June 1991 from the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO), which denied the veteran entitlement to special monthly pension benefits based on the need for aid and attendance or at the housebound rate. The Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) remanded the case in August 1992 for further development of the evidence. Pursuant to rating decision of January 1993, the RO awarded the veteran special monthly pension benefits at the housebound rate. Therefore, the sole issue remaining before the Board is whether the veteran is also entitled to special monthly pension benefits based on the need for regular aid and attendance. REMAND The veteran contends, in effect, that he requires someone to assist him with his daily living needs due to his disabilities, which include congestive heart failure and diabetes melitis. Initially, we note that the veteran apparently did not receive either a copy of the Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) issued in February 1993 or a copy of the award letter dated in March 1993. Our review of the record revealed that mail was returned to the RO by the United States Post Office. The SSOC issued in February 1993 was returned stamped "Attempted not Known". The SSOC had been mailed to: c/o Continental Hotel, 4000 Collins Avenue, Room 309, Miami Beach, Florida 33140. A letter notifying the veteran that special monthly pension benefits had been awarded was also sent to this address in March 1993. This letter was also returned stamped "Returned to Sender, Forwarding Order Expired". The veteran had provided the RO with a new address in a Statement in Support of Claim dated in September 1992. The RO used this address in communications of November 1992 and June 1993; however, all other communication was directed to the address above. As such, the award letter and a copy of the SSOC should be mailed to the veteran at the last address of record in his claims folder at 4101 Collins Ave, Apt. 825, Miami Beach, Fla. 33140. If the veteran cannot be located at this address, an attempt should be made to contact him through the address listed in VA computerized records (BIRLS) or 1900 North Bayshore Drive, Rm. 9115, Miami, Fla. 33132. The Board remanded the case in August 1992 and direction was made to afford the veteran Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) examinations. The veteran was scheduled for these examinations in October 1992; however, he did not appear. It is unclear as to whether notice to appear for the examination was sent to the correct address of record. Upon remand, the RO should place documentation in the claims file indicating the address to which notification of the examination was sent. In this regard, we note that the duty to assist includes, when appropriate, the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous examination of the veteran which takes into account the records of prior medical treatment. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991). This is to ensure that the evaluation of the disability is a fully informed one. Upon remand, a VA aid and attendance examination should be afforded the veteran. Since VA examination is to take place, current medical treatment records must be requested and associated with the claims file prior to the examination. Review of the record reveals that the veteran receives his inpatient care at Mount Sinai Hospital and his outpatient dermatological care from Lionel Resnick, M.D. It also appears that the veteran received treatment from Denis Weinberg, M.D. and R. Klein, M.D. All named providers should be contacted and asked to provide recent medical records pertaining to the veteran. We note that the veteran has been diagnosed as having hypothyroidism (Mount Sinai Hospital Admission Notes of December 1991 and April 1992), and not hyperthyroidism. The RO should attend to this when a rating decision is issued pursuant to the Board's remand. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that additional assistance is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should attempt to contact the veteran at the two addresses listed above and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers where he has received treatment from November 1992 to the present. They should also mail to him the SSOC issued in February 1993 and the March 1990 letter informing him of his eligibility for housebound benefits. The RO should request that he complete the appropriate authorization forms allowing for the release of private medical records to the VA. Thereafter, the RO should contact the Mount Sinai Hospital, 4300 Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33140; Denis Weinberg, M.D., 333 418th Street, Suite 614, Miami Beach, Florida 33140; R. Klein, M.D., 333 Arthur Godfrey Road, Miami Beach, Florida and Lionel Resnick, M.D., 945 41st Street, Suite 102, Miami Beach, Florida 33140 to request medical treatment records pertaining to the veteran that are dated from November 1992 to the present. All records obtained must be associated with the claims folder. 2. Following the development outlined above, the veteran should be afforded a VA aid and attendance examination. The examiner should review the entire claims file prior to the examination. 3. The RO should then review the case and prepare a rating decision addressing the issue of entitlement to special monthly pension due to the need for regular aid and attendance. The RO should also correct the reference to hyperthyroidism so it reflects that the veteran has hypothyroidism. In the event that the decision remains adverse to the appellant, a supplemental statement of the case should be prepared and furnished to the appellant and to his representative. They should then be given an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board in accordance with current appellate procedures. The appellant need take no action unless he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information, and no inference should be drawn regarding the final outcome of this claim as a result of this action. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 D. W. DATLOW, M. D. I. S. SHERMAN C. W. SYMANSKI 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) (1993).