Citation Nr: 0809833 Decision Date: 03/25/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 05-27 312 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Baltimore, Maryland THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip condition. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a back condition. 3. Entitlement to a total disability rating for individual unemployability (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Andrew Mack, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1973 to August 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Togus, Maine that denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to TDIU, and an August 2007 decision of the RO in Baltimore, Maryland that denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for a left hip and a back condition. The veteran perfected a timely appeal of the November 2004 determination to the Board. 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 In a statement received by the Board in November 2007, the veteran expressed disagreement with the RO's denial of his claims of service condition for a left hip condition and a back condition, in an August 2007 rating decision. Because the filing of a notice of disagreement initiates appellate review, the claim must be remanded for the preparation of a Statement of the Case. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999); Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398, 408-10 (1995). Therefore this issue must be remanded in order for the RO to issue a Statement of the Case. As the resolution of the veteran's claims for service connection are determinative of whether the minimum schedular requirements for TDIU have been met, the Board finds that the resolution of the veteran's claims for service connection impact the veteran's TDIU claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Under these circumstances, the Board finds that the above issues are inextricably intertwined with the TDIU issue. Thus, a decision at this time by the Board with respect to the veteran's TDIU claim would be premature. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Additionally, subsequent to the RO's October 2007 certification of appeal to the Board, the Board received additional evidence pertinent to the veteran's TDIU claim in the form of VA medical records dated from March 2007 to October 2007. The evidence was not accompanied by the veteran's waiver of initial RO review. Therefore, this matter must be remanded for RO readjudication of the veteran's claim for TDIIU. See generally, 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304; Disabled American Veterans v. Principi, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. With respect to the issues of entitlement to service condition for a left hip condition and entitlement to service connection for a back condition, the RO should furnish the veteran and his representative a Statement of the Case in accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 2002). The veteran and his representative should clearly be advised of the need to file a Substantive Appeal following the issuance of the Statement of the Case if the veteran wishes to complete an appeal from that decision. 2. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate, the RO should review the entire evidentiary record and readjudicate the TDIU. If any remaining benefit sought is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case. The requisite period of time for a response should be afforded. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. 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). _________________________________________________ JONATHAN B. KRAMER Acting 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).