Citation Nr: 0333368 Decision Date: 11/28/03 Archive Date: 12/10/03 DOCKET NO. 97-12 034 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, claimed as a systolic heart murmur. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: William J. La Croix, Attorney WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Andrew Ahlberg, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1964 to April 1965. This case was previously before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from adverse action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, (hereinafter RO). A November 20, 2002, Board decision denied the claim on appeal, and the veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (formerly the United States Court of Veterans Appeals) (hereinafter Court). In an order dated July 10, 2003, the Court vacated the November 20, 2002, Board decision and granted a Joint Motion for Remand (hereinafter Joint Motion). REMAND The Joint Motion found that the November 20, 2002, Board decision failed to "adequately discuss the notice requirements" mandated by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (hereinafter VCAA) and described in Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). As such, this case must be remanded in order to fulfill notice requirements and comply with the instructions of the court. A remand is also necessary to afford the RO the opportunity to, as requested by the veteran's attorney in his October 2003 correspondence, review the statement dated in September 2003 submitted by C. N. B., M.D. In a decision promulgated on September 22, 2003, Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated the 30-day response period contained in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1) as inconsistent with 38 U.S.C.§ 5103(b)(1). The court found that the 30-day period provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (b)(1) to respond to a VCCA duty to notify is misleading and detrimental to claimants whose claims are prematurely denied short of the statutory one-year period provided for response. Therefore, because this case is being remanded for the reasons stated above, the RO must take this opportunity to inform the appellant of the proper time in which he is allowed to respond to a VCAA notice. In light of the Order of the Court and in order to ensure that all due process requirements are met, this case must be REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO must review the claims file, as well as the Joint Motion, and ensure that all VCAA notice obligations have been satisfied in accordance with the recent decision in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as well as 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A, (West 2002), and any other applicable legal precedent. In particular, the regional office should inform the veteran of the type of evidence required from him and what evidence VA will obtain (with assistance from him) in order to substantiate his claim. The veteran should also be informed that VA will assist him in obtaining identified evidence, should he require such assistance. 2. Thereafter, if the claim on appeal remains denied, the veteran and his attorney should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The SSOC must contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits, to include a summary of the evidence and discussion of all pertinent regulations, including the September 2003 report from Dr. C.N.B., any evidence obtained as a result of the development requested above, and the VCAA. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if indicated. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. 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 The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West 2002) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.43 and 38.02. _________________________________________________ BETTINA S. CALLAWAY 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) (2003).