Citation Nr: 0812945 Decision Date: 04/18/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 02-12 932A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for peptic ulcer disease, status post total gastrectomy, to include entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to September 8, 2005 and in excess of 40 percent from September 8, 2005. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Virginia Department of Veterans Services WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. D. Deane, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1965 to September 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2002 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. In May 2005, the veteran was afforded a personal hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) sitting in Washington, DC. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The veteran, however, submitted a May 2005 statement in which he indicated his desire to reopen the issue of entitlement to service connection for diverticulitis. This matter is again referred to the RO for appropriate action. In July 2005, the Board remanded these claims for additional development. In a January 2006 rating decision, the RO increased the veteran's evaluation for peptic ulcer disease, status post total gastrectomy to a 40 percent rating, effective September 8, 2005. The issue of entitlement to a higher disability evaluation remains before the Board. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). 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 A March 2008 letter from the Board notified the veteran that the VLJ who conducted his May 2005 hearing was no longer employed by the Board and advised him of the opportunity to provide testimony before a current VLJ of the Board. In his April 2008 response, the veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a VLJ. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2007), a hearing on appeal will be granted to an appellant who requests a hearing and is willing to appear in person. See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002) (pertaining specifically to hearings before the Board). Since the RO schedules videoconference hearings, a remand of these matters to the RO is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: The RO should schedule the veteran for a Board videoconference hearing at the earliest available opportunity pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.700(e), 20.703, 20.707 (2007). The RO should notify the veteran and his representative of the date and time of the hearing, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b) (2007). After the hearing, the claims file should be returned to the Board in accordance with current appellate procedures. 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). _________________________________________________ RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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).