Citation Nr: 0811650 Decision Date: 04/09/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 04-29 242 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition, to include as secondary to military stress. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder, to include arthritis. 3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a cold injury to the hand. 4. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis. 5. Entitlement to service connection for bronchitis. 6. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 7. Entitlement to service connection for stress reaction. 8. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of double pneumonia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Vella Camilleri, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1948 to May 1950 and from September 1950 to November 1951. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Offices (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio, and Waco, Texas, in May 2004 and December 2006, respectively. The RO in Waco currently has jurisdiction of the case. 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 Unfortunately, a remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the veteran's claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. Such development would ensure that his due process rights, including those associated with 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002), and 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2007), are met. As an initial matter, review of the claims folder reveals that treatment records from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Bonham, Texas (Sam Rayburn Memorial Veterans Center) dated between January and August 2007 have been associated with the claims folder. It is unclear whether the veteran sought VA treatment prior to January 2007 and if any prior treatment records exist. On remand, the RO/AMC should request the veteran's treatment records from the Bonham and Dallas VAMCs prior to January 2007. The RO/AMC should also obtain recent VA records. In addition, review of the claims folder also reveals that the veteran may be in receipt of disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). See October 1993 VA Form 21-4138 and attached documents; October 1993 RO letter. The medical and legal documents pertaining to any award from SSA have not been associated with the claims folder. The possibility that SSA records could contain evidence relevant to the claims cannot be foreclosed absent a review of those records. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 188 (2002). The case, therefore, must be remanded to obtain these records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2007). The evidence associated with the claims folder includes medical records from Dr. E.S. White dated in July 1986 and August 1987 and a May 2004 letter, in which Dr. White reports seeing the veteran at intervals for many years. Despite this report, the claims folder does not contain treatment records from Dr. White other than those previously mentioned. On remand, the RO/AMC should make arrangements to obtain the veteran's complete treatment records from Dr. White. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the veteran's treatment records from the VAMCs in Dallas and Bonham, Texas, dated prior to January 2007, if they exist, as well as records dated from August 2007, forward. 2. Request all medical and legal documents pertaining to the veteran's application(s) for SSA disability benefits. If no records can be found, indicate whether the records do not exist and whether further efforts to obtain the records would be futile. 3. Make arrangements to obtain the veteran's complete treatment records from E.S. White, M.D. 4. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, issue an updated supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and give the veteran and his representative an appropriate amount of time to respond to it. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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 or by the U.S. 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). _________________________________________________ P.M. DILORENZO 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).