Citation NR: 9720311	
Decision Date: 06/11/97		Archive Date: 06/19/97
DOCKET NO.  96-20 154	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for paralysis, 
right leg, due to transverse myelitis, L1, currently 
evaluated as 60 percent disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for paralysis, 
left leg, due to transverse myelitis, L1, currently evaluated 
as 60 percent disabling.

3.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for intermittent 
bladder dysfunction due to transverse myelitis, currently 
evaluated as 40 percent disabling.

4.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for intermittent 
bowel dysfunction due to transverse myelitis, currently 
evaluated as 30 percent.

5.  Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on loss 
of use of lower extremity or extremities or on the basis of 
being housebound or in need of the regular aid and attendance 
of another person.



REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
Inc.


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Suzie S. Gaston, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from July 7, 1987 to 
July 30, 1987.  He has been represented throughout his appeal 
by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.  

This matter came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 
(hereinafter Board) on appeal from a RO rating decision of 
June 1995 that increased the evaluation for the veteran’s 
service-connected intermittent bladder dysfunction from a 20 
percent to 40 percent rating; denied increased ratings for 
paralysis of the right and left legs, and intermittent bowel 
dysfunction due to transverse myelitis; and denied special 
monthly compensation based on loss of use of lower extremity 
or extremities or on the basis of being housebound or in need 
of the regular aid and attendance of another person.  The 
notice of disagreement with this determination was received 
in August 1995.  The statement of the case was issued in 
September 1995.  The substantive appeal was received in May 
1996.  

The veteran appeared and offered testimony at a hearing 
before a hearing officer at the RO in June 1996.  A 
transcript of the hearing is of record.  Additional medical 
records were received in July 1996.  A supplemental statement 
of the case was issued in September 1996.  The appeal was 
received at the Board in January 1997.  


REMAND

The veteran essentially contends that his service-connected 
paralysis of the right and left leg, and bladder and bowel 
dysfunctions have progressively worsened over time.  The 
veteran maintains that the current evaluations assigned do 
not reflect the severity of the above disabilities.  The 
service representative points out that the veteran must use 
an appliance at least 5 times per day and he must take 
medications to supplement his regimen.  It is maintained that 
the requirements of loss of anal sphincter and bladder 
control is met even though incontinence has been overcome 
under a strict regimen of rehabilitation of bowel and bladder 
training and other auxiliary measures.  The service 
representative further maintains that the record clearly 
shows that the veteran has a bilateral foot drop with the 
left foot being worse and requires a brace.  Therefore, it is 
argued that the veteran should be awarded special monthly 
compensation.  

In April 1997, a private medical statement from Dr. Craig 
Bash was received directly at the Board.  Under 38 C.F.R. 
§ 20.1304(b) (1996), any evidence submitted to the Board over 
90 days following notification to the veteran of the transfer 
of records from the RO to the Board, will not be accepted, 
except when the appellant demonstrates on motion that there 
was good cause for the delay.  The veteran’s service 
representative did submit such a motion along with the 
statement, and the Board finds that there was good cause for 
the delay.  The representative has also requested that the 
case be remanded to the RO for consideration of the medical 
opinion.  Therefore, the evidence must be referred to the RO 
for review and preparation of a supplemental statement of the 
case pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (c) (1996).  

In light of the foregoing, and in keeping with VA's duty to 
assist the veteran in the development of facts pertaining to 
his claim, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 
§ 3.103(a) (1996), the Board finds that further development 
is in order prior to appellate disposition of this case.  
Accordingly, the Board hereby REMANDS this case to the RO for 
the following actions:  

1.  The RO should review the claims file, 
including the copy of the April 1997 
medical statement from Dr. Bash, and 
enter another rating decision in light of 
this evidence.  

2.  If the benefit sought by the veteran 
is not granted, both he and his 
representative should be furnished a 
supplemental statement of the case which 
summarizes the pertinent evidence, all 
applicable law and regulations, and 
reflects detailed reasons and bases for 
the decision.  They should then be 
afforded the applicable time period in 
which to respond.  

After the above actions have been accomplished, the case 
should be returned to the Board for further appellate 
consideration, if otherwise in order.  No action is required 
of the veteran until he receives further notice.  

By this REMAND the Board intimates no opinion, either legal 
or factual, as to the ultimate determination warranted in 
this case.  The purpose of this REMAND is to further develop 
the record and to accord the veteran due process of law.  



		
	RICHARD V. CHAMBERLAIN
	Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

38 U.S.C.A. § 7102 (West Supp. 1996) permits a proceeding 
instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual 
member of the Board for a determination.  This proceeding has 
been assigned to an individual member of the Board.

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) 
(1996).

- 2 -