Citation Nr: 0812718 Decision Date: 04/17/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 05-34 815 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome of the right upper extremity. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome of the left upper extremity. 3. Entitlement to service connection for left leg neuropathy. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Missouri Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Van Stewart, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from July 22, 1972, to June 18, 1980; he had 8 months of active service prior to July 22, 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of July 2003, June 2004, and August 2005 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) in September 2005 with the RO's August 2005 award of a 20 percent rating for degenerative arthritis of the left ankle, with the denial of service connection for erectile dysfunction, and with denial of service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with left leg nerve damage. Following the RO's August 2006 issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC) related to these issues, the veteran responded in October 2006 with what he characterized as a NOD. Because the October 2006 correspondence was in direct response to the August 2005 SOC, the RO accepted this document in lieu of a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The October 2005 document from the veteran specified that he disagreed with the August 2006 decision that denied service connection for nerve damage of the left leg, which the veteran contended was secondary to his service-connected left ankle disability. The veteran did not disagree with the denial of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, with the denial of service connection for erectile dysfunction, or with the award of the 20 percent disability rating for his left ankle disability. This limitation of the veteran's substantive appeal is recognized by the statement of the veteran's accredited representative in January 2007, which noted that the appeal was rested "on the answer to the statement of the case," which, as noted, limited the appeal to service connection for nerve damage of the left leg. Accordingly, the only issues over which the Board has jurisdiction in the instant appeal are those listed on the title page above. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (2007) (substantive appeal must indicate either that the appeal is being perfected as to all of the issues addressed in the SSOC and any supplemental statements of the case (SSOCs), or must specifically identify the issue(s) appealed.) REMAND The veteran has claimed service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Such a claim was previously denied by the Board in a decision dated in December 1987. A decision of the Board becomes final on the date stamped on the decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100. Additionally, a claim to reopen was denied in August 1990 by the RO. No appeal was initiated, and this decision likewise became final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 20.1103. If a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision became final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108; see Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140, 145 (1991). Generally, in the absence of new and material evidence, VA is not required to provide assistance to a claimant attempting to reopen a previously disallowed claim. Paralyzed Veterans of America, et al. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (PVA). Here, however, the Board notes that the veteran has identified medical records associated with carpal tunnel release surgeries performed at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Denver, Colorado in March and April 1984. While the record contains some treatment records from VAMC Denver for the period leading up to the surgeries, there are no operation reports of record. Because these are records in the custody of a Federal department, VA is responsible for obtaining them. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The Board will therefore remand in order to obtain those records. Any determination regarding whether new and material evidence has been received will be deferred until these records are obtained. The Board notes that, in a statement dated September 15, 1989, the veteran indicated that he was receiving payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The veteran also reported to a VA examiner in September 2006 that he has been on Social Security disability since 1987. The Board notes that, while reports of April 1984 and August 1985 denials of SSA benefits are of record, there are no records related to the SSA benefits reportedly granted in 1987. The Board will remand in order to obtain those SSA records as they could relate to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the veteran's case is REMANDED to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should take the necessary steps to obtain any and all relevant Social Security Administration records related to the veteran, especially those related to the award of SSA benefits he has stated began in 1987. The veteran should also be asked to identify any other sources of treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome or left leg neuropathy; records should be sought. 2. The AOJ should seek any medical reports related to the veteran's carpal tunnel syndrome release surgeries conducted in March and April 1984 at the VAMC in Denver, Colorado. 3. The veteran should be scheduled for a neurological evaluation to determine whether service-connected left ankle disability has resulted in any left leg neuropathy. The examiner should be asked to review the claims file, examine the veteran, and provide an opinion on the medical probabilities that any left leg neuropathy has been caused by or made worse by service-connected left ankle disability. Any testing necessary to arrive at an opinion should be conducted. 4. After undertaking any other development deemed appropriate, the AOJ should consider the issues on appeal in light of all information or evidence received. If any benefit sought is not granted, the veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. After expiration of any applicable period allowed for response, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the AOJ. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the AOJ. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This case must be afforded expeditious treatment by the AOJ. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the Court 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). ________________________________ MARK F. HALSEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board 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).