Citation Nr: 0810576 Decision Date: 03/31/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 06-28 125A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a sinus disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis B. 3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right spermatocele, to include as due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. C. Mackenzie, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1968 to May 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2005 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey. The veteran testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing in October 2007. A transcript of that hearing is of record. During his October 2007 video conference hearing, the veteran raised the issue of entitlement to an increased evaluation for migraine headaches, and this matter is referred to the RO 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 further action is required. REMAND During his October 2007 video conference hearing, the RO described current treatment for his disorders from a VA facility, as well as from Dr. Angelo A. DeMarco and Dr. Frank Rotella. The claims file includes a November 2007 medical statement, but no treatment records, from Dr. DeMarco, as well as treatment records dated only through September 2006 from the East Orange, New Jersey VA Medical Center (VAMC). It thus follows that efforts are necessary to obtain records of recent medical treatment prior to Board adjudication. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2007); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992) (regarding VA medical records). The Board also notes the claims file includes favorable medical opinions regarding the veteran's claimed sinus disorder and hepatitis B, but it is not clear that either doctor reviewed the veteran's claims file in its entirety. A VA examiner from July 2004 noted that the veteran's nasal obstruction was "most likely than to his military service" based on a review of the examination and "the history of this Vietnam veteran with a combat exposure," but the examiner did not specify whether the claims file, and specifically the service medical records and DD Form 214, had been reviewed. In the aforementioned November 2007 statement, Dr. DeMarco cited to a review of the veteran's "medical history and physical exams" in reaching the opinion that his contact with hepatitis B occurred during service. Both opinions render it "necessary" under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2007) that a thorough VA examination, incorporating a claims file review, be conducted in conjunction with this appeal. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. A letter should be sent to the veteran explaining, in terms of 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103 and 5103A, the need for additional evidence regarding his claims. The letter must inform the veteran about the information and evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claims, notify him of the type of evidence that VA will seek to provide, inform him of the type of evidence that he is expected to provide, and request that he provide any and all relevant evidence currently in his possession. The veteran should specifically be requested to provide signed release forms, with address information, for Dr. DeMarco and Dr. Rotella. The veteran should be further notified of his right to submit a nexus opinion from one or more of his treating doctors relating his claims disorders to service. The veteran should also be notified that, in cases where service connection is granted, both a disability evaluation and an effective date for that evaluation will be granted. See Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). 2. After securing any necessary release forms, with full address information, all records of medical treatment which are not currently associated with the veteran's claims file should be requested. Regardless of whether the veteran provides the requested release forms, this action should include records dated since September 2006 from the East Orange VAMC. All records obtained pursuant to this request must be included in the veteran's claims file. If the search for such records has negative results, documentation to that effect should be included in the claims file. 3. Then, the veteran should be afforded a VA examination, with an appropriate examiner, to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed sinus disorder and hepatitis B. The veteran's claims file should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination, and the examiner is requested to review the entire claims file in conjunction with the examination. All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. Based on a review of the claims file and the clinical findings of the examination, the examiner is requested to provide a diagnosis for each disorder corresponding to the veteran's claimed sinus disorder and hepatitis B. The examiner is also requested to offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (e.g., a 50 percent or greater probability) that each diagnosed disorder, if present, is etiologically related to the veteran's period of active service. If any claimed disorders are not shown upon examination, the examiner should so state. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed in a typewritten report. 4. After completion of the above development, the veteran's claims of service connection for a sinus disorder, hepatitis B, and residuals of a right spermatocele should be readjudicated. If the determination of any of these claims remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given an opportunity to respond. Then, if indicated, this case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal 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. 2006). _________________________________________________ TARA L. REYNOLDS 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).