Citation Nr: 1047900 Decision Date: 12/27/10 Archive Date: 01/03/11 DOCKET NO. 08-17 175 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUE Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for diabetes insipidus. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. McPhaull, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from August 1967 to March 1969. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2006 rating decision by the Chicago, Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that continued a 40 percent rating for diabetes insipidus. In September 2010, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. At the hearing, the Veteran was granted an additional 60 days for submission of evidence. No additional evidence has been received. The issues of service connection for a kidney disorder, hypertension and an abdominal disability all as secondary to service-connected diabetes insipidus are raised by the record (see page 3 and 5 of the hearing transcript), but have not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them, and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if any action on his part is required. REMAND The instant claim for increase was received in August 2006. The next higher (60 percent) rating for diabetes insipidus (under 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, Diagnostic Code (Code) 7909) requires polyuria with near-continuous thirst, and one or two documented (emphasis added) episodes of dehydration requiring parenteral hydration in the past year. A 100 percent rating requires polyuria with near- continuous thirst, and more than two documented (emphasis added) episodes of dehydration requiring parenteral hydration in the past year. October 2005 to April 2006 Rush Hospital private treatment records do not relate to treatment for diabetes insipidus. On the most recent, September 2006, VA examination, the Veteran reported polyuria and polydipsia. He stated that he was last seen in the VA endocrine clinic in December 2003. At the September 2010 Travel Board hearing, the Veteran and his wife testified that in the past year he had been treated for dehydration on more than one occasion, and identified Rush Hospital as the treating facility. Inasmuch as he has identified records that are pertinent (and may be critical) to his claim for increase, such records must be sought. The Veteran is advised that under 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a), where evidence requested in connection with a claim for increase is not furnished within one year of the request, the claim will be considered abandoned. He is further advised that if VA is unable to secure private records of his treatment, it is ultimately his responsibility to ensure that such records are received. At the hearing, the Veteran also testified that he has received Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits for diabetes insipidus since 1988. Inasmuch as governing caselaw (Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) provides that only relevant SSA records must be secured, and because records dating from 1988 or earlier would have no bearing on a claim for increase filed in 2006, the Board finds that SSA records need not be sought. Notably, staged ratings are appropriate in a claim for increase when the factual findings show distinct time periods when the disability exhibits symptoms that warrant different ratings. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The Veteran should be asked to identify (and provide any releases needed for VA to secure records from) all providers of treatment and evaluation he has received for diabetes insipidus since April 2006 (especially the records from Rush Hospital identified at the September 2010 hearing). If there is no response to an RO request for records from any identified source, the Veteran should be so notified, and advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that pertinent private records are received. If any records cannot be secured because they have been irretrievably lost or destroyed, it should be so noted for the record. 2. The RO should then review all additional records received, and arrange for any further development suggested (i.e., an examination if the records do not provide sufficient information for rating the disability). If an examination is deemed necessary, the Veteran's claims file must be reviewed by the examiner, and the examiner must also be provided a copy of the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, Code 7909 (for diabetes insipidus). The findings reported should include sufficient detail to allow for rating under the criteria in Code 7909. The examiner must explain the rationale for any opinions offered. In connection with the scheduling of any examination the Veteran should be advised of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. 3. The RO should then re-adjudicate the claim. If it remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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 for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2009). _________________________________________________ GEORGE R. SENYK 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) (2010).