Citation Nr: 0809643 Decision Date: 03/21/08 Archive Date: 04/03/08 DOCKET NO. 04-15 595 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left testicle removal. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. L. Douglas, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a veteran who served on active duty from May 1969 to December 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2003 rating decision by the Huntington, West Virginia, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA records show the veteran cancelled a scheduled hearing in September 2005. Therefore, his request for a Board hearing is considered as having been withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (2007). The case was remanded for additional development in October 2006. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2006); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2007). A review of the record shows the veteran was notified of the evidence not of record that was necessary to substantiate his claims and of which parties were expected to provide such evidence by correspondence dated in November 2006. During the pendency of this appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter "the Court") in Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), found that the VCAA notice requirements applied to all elements of a claim. These matters were addressed in the notice provided in November 2006. In this case, additional evidence was received pertinent to the issues on appeal by VA in November 2007, including medical articles addressing a possible relationship between orchitis and gonorrhea and statements indicating a VA physician had indicated the veteran probably got hepatitis as a result of service in Vietnam. As the veteran has not waived agency of original jurisdiction consideration of this evidence, these matters must be remanded for additional development. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (2007). Therefore, the case must be remanded for additional development. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The veteran should be requested to identify the VA physician who allegedly related his hepatitis C to service in Vietnam, as well as, the approximate date of treatment. Upon receipt of this information, appropriate action should be taken to obtain and associate any pertinent records with the claims folder. All attempts to procure records should be documented in the file. If records identified by the veteran cannot be obtained, a notation to that effect should be inserted in the file. The veteran and his representative are to be notified of unsuccessful efforts in this regard, in order to allow him the opportunity to obtain and submit those records for VA review. 2. After completion of the above and any additional development deemed necessary, the issues on appeal should be reviewed with appropriate consideration of all evidence of record. If any benefit sought remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or 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. 2007). _________________________________________________ RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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) (2007).