Citation Nr: 0601206 Decision Date: 01/17/06 Archive Date: 01/31/06 DOCKET NO. 03-25 731 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in No. Little Rock, Arkansas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for left axilla suppurative hidradenitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right axilla suppurative hidradenitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Zills, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from November 1992 to April 1993. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 2002 RO decision which denied a rating higher than 10 percent for left axilla suppurative hidradenitis, and also denied service connection for right axilla suppurative hidradenitis. In January 2003, the veteran testified at a hearing before the RO. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. Upon consideration of the record, the Board finds that there is a further VA duty to assist the veteran in developing evidence pertinent to her claims for an increased rating and service connection. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Thus, the appeal is remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required on her part. REMAND The veteran seeks a rating higher than 10 percent for her service-connected left axilla suppurative hidradenitis, and also seeks service connection for right axilla suppurative hidradenitis. Upon review of the veteran's claims file, the Board notes that at her hearing before the RO, the veteran indicated that she had received treatment for her claimed conditions from a specialist, Dr. Dickson, located in Benton, Arkansas. It does not appear that such records have been associated with the claims file, or that the RO has attempted to obtain such records. As decisions of the Board must be based on all of the evidence that is known to be available, such records should be obtained prior to further adjudication of the claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(A) (West 2002 & Supp. 2005). Any updated treatment records regarding left and right axilla suppurative hidradenitis should also be obtained. At her hearing before the RO, the veteran also indicated that she was receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA), and such benefits were provided on the basis of disability resulting from the claimed conditions as opposed to regular social security based on age. Any records used in the determination of entitlement to social security benefits should also be associated with the claims file. Additionally, the Board notes that the veteran has not been provided with a VA examination which addresses the current severity of her left axilla suppurative hidradenitis since October 2002. In light of the passage of time since this examination, as well as indications from private medical records in the claims file that the veteran has recently undergone surgery for this condition, an updated VA examination should be given prior to further adjudication of the claims. Finally, the Board notes that subsequent to the issuance of the statement of the case (dated in July 2003), additional private medical evidence dated in February 2004 has been submitted directly to the Board. A waiver has not been submitted with regard to RO initial consideration of this evidence, and thus the case must also be returned to the RO for initial consideration of this evidence and for issuance of a supplemental statement of the case. See Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir. 2003). The actions identified herein are consistent with the duties imposed by the VCAA. However, identification of specific actions requested on remand does not relieve the RO of the responsibility to ensure full compliance with the VCAA and its implementing regulations. Hence, in addition to the actions requested above, the RO should also undertake any other development and/or notification action deemed warranted by the VCAA prior to adjudicating the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the Board has no alternative but to defer further appellate consideration of the claims and the case is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and ask her to identify all sources of VA and non-VA treatment for left and right axilla suppurative hidradenitis from the time of her separation from service in 1993 to the present. The RO should then obtain copies of the related medical records which are not already associated with the claims file, to specifically include, but not limited to, treatment received from Dr. Dickson in Benton, Arkansas. The veteran is asked to obtain these records herself, if possible, to expedite the claims. 2. The RO should contact the SSA and obtain copies of all medical and other records considered by the SSA in awarding the veteran disability benefits, along with copies of all related SSA decisions. 3. The RO should arrange for the veteran to be scheduled for an examination which addresses the current severity of her service-connected left axilla suppurative hidradenitis. Pertinent information in the claims file should be reviewed by the examiner. Any necessary related studies should be done. The examiner should describe all symptomatology due to the veteran's service-connected left axilla suppurative hidradenitis, if any. The examiner is asked to indicate if the veteran has right axilla suppurative hidradenitis and whether it is as likely as not related to her service from November 1992 to April 1993. 4. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, the RO should readjudicate the claims on appeal in light of all pertinent evidence and legal authority, and in doing so the RO should take into account all evidence submitted since the July 2003 statement of the case. 5. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the RO must furnish the veteran and her representative an appropriate supplemental SOC (to include citation to all additional legal authority considered, and all clear reasons and bases for the RO's determinations), and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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. 2005). _________________________________________________ JOHN J. CROWLEY 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) (2005).