Citation Nr: 0811582 Decision Date: 04/08/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 05-05 289 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for foot problems as due to an undiagnosed illness (foot disabilities claim). 2. Entitlement to service connection for an undiagnosed illness manifested by constellation of symptoms including multiple arthralgias, myalgias, alleged muscle spasms, and bowel irregularities; suggestive of irritable bowel syndrome (also claimed as joint pains) as due to an undiagnosed illness (multiple disabilities claim). 3. Entitlement to service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Fitch, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1989 to August 1991 and from July 1999 to August 2001. This matter initially came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2003 decision of the Phoenix, Arizona, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Jurisdiction was since transferred to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, RO. In June 2007, this appeal was remanded for additional development. In October 2007, the veteran testified during a hearing before the undersigned conducted via videoconference. A transcript of this hearing is of record. 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 During his October 2007 Board hearing, the veteran testified regarding his claim for PTSD and identified medical records relevant to his claim that were not associated with his claims files. These include medical and treatment records from the Vet Center in Prescott, Arizona, dated since March 2006, and from the Orange City, New Jersey, and Wilkes-Barre and Williamsport, Pennsylvania, VA medical facilities, dated since service. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain records from each of these providers. The veteran should also be afforded an opportunity to submit any additional medical records or opinions pertinent to his claims not already associated with his claims files. In this regard, the Board notes that records generated by VA facilities that may have an impact on the adjudication of a claim are considered to be constructively in the possession of VA adjudicators during the consideration of a claim, regardless of whether those records are physically on file. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466-67 (1998); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). Pursuant to the VCAA, VA must obtain outstanding VA and private records. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(b-c) (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2007). In view of the above, this case is REMANDED to the RO/AMC for the following actions: 1. The RO/AMC should take appropriate steps to contact the veteran and request that he identify any additional VA and non-VA health care providers, not already associated with his claims files that treated him for the disabilities at issue including PTSD, and foot problems and multiple disabilities due to an undiagnosed illness. Then, the RO/AMC should obtain all medical and treatment records from the Vet Center in Prescott, Arizona, dated since March 2006, and from the Orange City, New Jersey, and Wilkes-Barre and Williamsport, Pennsylvania VA medical facilities, dated since 1991 and since 2001, and any other medical records identified by the veteran. If any requested records are unavailable, a note to that effect should be placed in the claims files and the veteran and his representative so informed in writing. 2. Thereafter, the RO/AMC should undertake any additional development so indicated by the record, and then readjudicate the appellant's claims for service connection for PTSD and for foot problems and the multiple disabilities as due to an undiagnosed illness. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the appellant should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The SSOC should contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claims, to include a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered pertinent to the issue currently on appeal since the January 2005 and January 2007 statements of the case (for foot and multiple disabilities due to undiagnosed illness, and PTSD, respectively). An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified. 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). (CONTIUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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). _________________________________________________ D.J. DRUCKER 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) (2006 ).