Citation Nr: 0810909 Decision Date: 04/02/08 Archive Date: 04/14/08 DOCKET NO. 97-10 304A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss disability. (The issue of the evaluation of valvular regurgitation with premature ventricular contractions is the subject of a separate decision.) REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: African American PTSD Association WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. I. Velez, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from June 1965 to October 1992. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. A Travel Board hearing in front of the undersigned Veterans Law Judge was conducted in January 2003. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claim file. In April 2004 a hearing on the issues of initial ratings for hypertension and premature ventricular contractions in front of another Veterans Law Judge was held. The issue of the evaluation of hypertension was addressed. The evaluation of the valvular regurgitation with premature ventricular contractions shall be the subject of a separate decision. In June 2005 the Board remanded the case for further evidentiary development. 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 July 2007 subsequent to the issuance of the statement of the case the appellant submitted additional medical evidence in the form of VA audiological examination of February 2006 directly to the Appeals Management Center. The AOJ has not reviewed this evidence. The Board notes that while there is a waiver of initial consideration of evidence of record dated in April 2004, this waiver cannot be presumed to apply to the evidence submitted in July 2007. The April 2004 waiver specifically stated that the veteran was waiving RO consideration of the additional evidence submitted to the member of the Board of Veterans Appeals Travel Board. The undersigned VLJ notes that he was not the one who conducted the April 2004 Travel Board hearing. Furthermore, the waiver is specific as to which evidence the veteran is waiving initial consideration by the RO. Considering that the waiver was submitted regarding evidence presented to a different VLJ and considering the specificity of the waiver, the Board will not consider it to be applicable to all evidence submitted thereafter. As such, we find that there is no indication in the record that the veteran waived initial consideration by the AOJ of the evidence submitted in July 2007. As the AOJ did not review this evidence, an SSOC must be issued. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37 (2007). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: The AOJ should issue the veteran a supplemental statement of the case with consideration of the evidence received in July 2007. If upon completion of the above action decision remains adverse to the veteran, the case should be returned, if necessary, after compliance with requisite appellate procedures. 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). _________________________________________________ H. N. SCHWARTZ 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).