On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Houston, Texas
THE ISSUES
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).
