Citation Nr: 0813382 Decision Date: 04/23/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 02-15 938 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K.A. Kennerly, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1989 to January 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 2000, June 2001 and July 2001 rating decisions of the Louisville, Kentucky, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) with the February 2000 rating decision and limited her appeal to the issue of the original noncompensable rating assigned for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine. Subsequently, in a June 2001 rating decision, the RO granted a 10 percent original rating for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine. The RO, in a July 2001 rating decision, denied service connection for a right hip disorder, right leg pain, a skin disorder and a bilateral eye disorder. The veteran filed a NOD with the July 2001 rating decision in October 2001. In her October 2001 NOD, the veteran withdrew her appeal of the evaluation of her service-connected degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine. At her videoconference hearing in January 2003, the veteran withdrew her appeal as to the issue of service connection for a bilateral eye disorder. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2007). As the veteran has withdrawn her appeal as to those issues, the issues are not for appellate consideration at this time. In December 2003, the Board remanded the veteran's claims for service connection for a right hip disorder, a right leg disorder and a skin disorder. Based on the development ordered by the Board, the RO granted service connection for a skin disorder in February 2005. As the claims folder does not contain a NOD with either the rating or effective date assigned for the skin disorder, this issue is not in appellate status. In August 2005, the Board again remanded the veteran's claims in order to obtain medical treatment records that diagnosed any disorder of the right hip and knee since service. The RO was also to obtain treatment records from the Louisville VA Medical Center and Ireland Army Community Hospital. 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 on her part. REMAND The Board is cognizant of the fact that the veteran's case has been in adjudicative status since 2002, and it has already been remanded twice in the past. Consequently, the Board wishes to assure the veteran that it would not be remanding this case again unless it was essential for a full and fair adjudication of her claim. During the pendency of the veteran's appeal, the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the veteran's January 2003 Board video conference hearing retired. As such, the veteran was informed in October 2007 that she was entitled to an additional Board hearing if she so chose. In a response received in January 2008, the veteran indicated that she wished to have a new Board video conference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the Louisville, Kentucky RO. As such, this claim must be remanded to schedule the veteran for a new hearing. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: This claim is remanded to the AMC/RO to schedule the veteran for a hearing before a member of the Board at the RO (a video conference hearing). After the hearing has been held or the veteran cancels the hearing or fails to report, the case should be returned directly to the Board for further consideration. 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). _________________________________________________ BARBARA B. COPELAND 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).