Citation Nr: 0812772 Decision Date: 04/17/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 07-00 240 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for claimed right ear hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for claimed left ear hearing loss. 3. Entitlement to service connection for claimed tinnitus. 4. Entitlement to service connection for the claimed residuals of right cubital tunnel syndrome . 5. Entitlement to service connection for claimed lower back strain with degenerative changes. 6. Entitlement to service connection for claimed hepatitis C. 7. Entitlement to service connection for claimed diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as secondary to Hepatitis C. 8. Entitlement to service connection for a claimed heart condition, status post myocardial infarction, to include as secondary to Hepatitis C. 9. Entitlement to service connection for a claimed stomach disorder, to include as secondary to Hepatitis C. 10. Entitlement to service connection for the claimed residuals of cholecystectomy, claimed as gall bladder disability, to include as secondary to Hepatitis C. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Fitch, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1977 to February 1980, and from July 1980 to April 1989. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2005 and November 2006 rating decision by the RO. In September 2007, the veteran, accompanied by his representative, testified at a hearing before the undersigned Acting Veteran's Law Judge at an RO. A transcript of these proceedings has been associated with the veteran's claims file. The appeal is being remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. REMAND After a careful review of the claims folder, the Board finds that the veteran's claims must be remanded for further action. In his September 2007 testimony, the veteran identified medical evidence that is relevant to his claims that has not been associated with the veteran's claims file. Specifically, the veteran indicated that he had been seen for several serious medical conditions, to include burst blood vessels in his esophagus and other medical problems, in 2006 and 2007. He indicated that treatment for these medical conditions took place at the Fayetteville, Arkansas, VA Medical Center. The veteran also indicated that he was scheduled for another screening for one of his medical conditions dated in October 2007. Finally, the veteran indicated that his primary care physician was located at the Mt. Vernon, Missouri, VA Clinic. In this regard, the Board notes that medical and treatment records from the Fayetteville VA Medical Center dated since October 2005 have not been associated with the veteran's claims file (with the exception of one page of treatment notes dated in March 2006). There are also no treatment records of the veteran's primary care from the Mt. Vernon VA Clinic associated with the veteran's file. The veteran should also be afforded an opportunity to submit any recent medical records or opinions pertinent to his claims that have not already been associated with the veteran's claims file. 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 Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to contact the veteran and request that he identify all VA and non-VA health care providers, other than those already associated with the veteran's claims file, that have treated him since service for his claimed disabilities. This should specifically include medical and treatment records from the Fayetteville VA Medical Center dated since October 2005, and records of the veteran's care at the Mt. Vernon, Missouri, VA Clinic, dated since service. The aid of the veteran in securing these records, to include providing necessary authorization(s), should be enlisted, as needed. If any requested records are not available, or if the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact should clearly be documented in the claims file, and the veteran should be informed in writing. 2. Following completion of the foregoing, and after undertaking any further development deemed warranted by the record (and keeping in mind the dictates of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000), the RO should again review the claims in light of all the evidence of record. If any determination remains adverse, the veteran and his representative must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be given an opportunity to submit written or other argument in response thereto. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The veteran 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). _________________________________________________ STEPHEN L. WILKINS 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).