Citation Nr: 0813831 Decision Date: 04/25/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 91-00 010A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUES 1. Service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 2. Service connection for a lung disorder. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher McEntee, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1973 to March 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision dated in July 1990 of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. In July 2003 and March 2004, the Board remanded this matter for further development. REMAND In previous remands, the Board has requested that the veteran be provided with VA compensation examination and opinions for his claims. These requests have not been satisfied yet, however. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with its remand). The Board notes that, in September 2006, the veteran was provided with a VA compensation examination with a psychiatrist. But the subsequent examination report does not provide a nexus opinion. Moreover, the Board notes that the veteran was apparently scheduled for an examination - in November 2006 - for his claimed pulmonary disorder, for which he apparently did not appear. But, as the March 2007 letter from the Appeals Management Center notes, it is not clear in the record whether VA notified the veteran of the scheduled examination. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The veteran should be scheduled for VA examinations with appropriate specialists in order to determine the nature and severity of any psychiatric or lung disorders. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiners in conjunction with the examinations, and the examination reports should reflect that such reviews were made. All pertinent symptomatology and findings should be reported in detail. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies should be accomplished. The veteran's complaints should be recorded in full. 2. Each examiner should then comment on the likelihood (not likely, as likely as not, likely) that any psychiatric disorder or lung disorder is attributable to the veteran's service between December 1973 and March 1974. Any conclusion reached should be supported by a rationale. 3. The RO should then readjudicate the issues on appeal. If a determination remains unfavorable to the veteran, the RO should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case that contains notice of all relevant actions taken, including a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered pertinent to the issues. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response by the veteran and his representative. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims 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). _________________________________________________ John E. Ormond, Jr. 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).