Citation Nr: 0811731 Decision Date: 04/09/08 Archive Date: 04/23/08 DOCKET NO. 07-03 037 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 3. Entitlement to service connection for vertigo. 4. Entitlement to service connection for sinus disability. 5. Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis. 6. Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disability, to include depression, anxiety, mood swings and social impairment. 7. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ankle disability, to include arthritis. 8. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: David L. Huffman, Attorney at Law WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Curameng, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty service from September 1969 to May 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2006 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The veteran's notice of disagreement was received in May 2006. A statement of the case was issued in November 2006, and a substantive appeal was received in January 2007. The veteran appeared at a September 2007 Board hearing at the RO. A transcript is of record. Additional evidence was received from the veteran in September 2007 and November 2007 with waiver of preliminary RO review provided at the aforementioned September 2007 Board hearing at the RO. 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 It appears to the Board that there may be outstanding medical records that are not associated with the veteran's claims file. A letter from the veteran's representative was received in July 2005. According to the letter, enclosed were 52 pages of medical records from Michael K. Brockett, M.D. from Marietta Memorial Hospital showing treatment from September 1983 to June 2002. Of record are treatment records from Marietta Memorial Hospital showing treatment from January 1995 to April 1996, and a cover letter from September 2007. Also of record is a November 2005 letter from Dr. Brockett. No other records from Marietta Memorial Hospital and Dr. Brockett are contained within the veteran's claims file. Further, in the veteran's claim received in June 2005, the veteran noted that he received treatment from a Dr. Reich for his hearing loss. And the veteran testified at the September 2007 Board hearing at the RO that he also received treatment for his hearing loss from a Dean Northrop and a Dr. Wright. As it appears that there may be additional documents that have not been associated with the appellant's claims file, appellate action is not proper at this time. The Board also notes that the record includes a private medical opinion regarding the hearing loss claim. Under these circumstances, the Board believes a VA examination is now necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should take appropriate action to locate and associate medical records from Marietta Memorial Hospital (not already of record) with the veteran's claims file. If necessary, a request should be made of copies of all medical records (not already of record) from Marietta Memorial Hospital showing treatment from September 1983 to June 2002. 2. Action should be taken to contact the veteran and obtain appropriate consents to the release of medical records. The Board is particularly interested in the following: Dr. Reich, Dean Northrop, and Dr. Wright. 3. The veteran should be scheduled for a VA audiological examination. The claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. Audiological test results should be reported. Further, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any current hearing loss and/or tinnitus is causally related to the veteran's active duty service. A rationale should be provided. 4. After completion of the above and any additional development of the evidence that the RO may deem necessary, the RO should review the record and determine if the claims can be granted. The appellant and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review. 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). _________________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY 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).