Citation Nr: 0814083 Decision Date: 04/29/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 06-34 116A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Muskogee, Oklahoma THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to payment or reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses incurred as a result of treatment at Claremore Regional Hospital from April 14, 2005 to April 15, 2005. 2. Entitlement to payment or reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses incurred as a result of treatment by Norstar Emergency Physicians from April 14, 2005 to April 15, 2005. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Giannecchini, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active military service from November 1968 to November 1972. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) following October 2005 determinations of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. A review of the veteran's medical administrative services (MAS) file from the Muskogee VAMC reflects the veteran's February 2007 request for a videoconference hearing with a member of the Board. The veteran was subsequently scheduled for an April 17, 2008 videoconference hearing. At the time for the scheduled hearing, the undersigned Veterans Law Judge was informed by the veteran's representative, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), that the service organization had not been afforded an opportunity to review the veteran's MAS file before it was forwarded to the Board. The representative requested that the hearing be rescheduled to allow DAV an opportunity to review the veteran's MAS file and prepare for the hearing. The representative subsequently faxed a written motion to the Board requesting a rescheduling of the videoconference hearing. The undersigned has granted DAV's motion to reschedule the veteran's requested videoconference hearing. (It appears in this case that the veteran's MAS file from the Muskogee VAMC was forwarded directly to the Board without first being routed to DAV for review. The MAS file includes a November 2005 VA Form 21-22 (Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant's Representative) granting a power of attorney to DAV. The veteran's claims file forwarded from the regional office (RO) did not include a copy of the November 2005 VA Form 21-22 or any other notice that the veteran was being represented. (An issue under the jurisdiction of the RO was also developed for appellate review-entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).) In this regard, a March 2008 VA Form 8 (Certification of Appeal) from the RO reflects a notation that the veteran was unrepresented. An October 2006 VA Form 8 from the VAMC likewise does not reflect that the veteran was represented. Thus, the RO and VAMC appear to have forwarded the files directly to the Board without first routing either file to DAV for review.) 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). In light of the above circumstances, the veteran should be rescheduled for a videoconference hearing before a member of the Board. Prior to any scheduled hearing, the veteran's representative should be afforded an opportunity to review the veteran's MAS file. In view of the foregoing, this case must be REMANDED for the following action: A videoconference hearing before a member of the Board should be scheduled. The veteran and his representative should be notified of the date and time of the hearing in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b) (2007). The veteran and his representative should be given opportunity to review both the MAS file from the Muskogee VAMC as well as the claims file from the RO and prepare for the hearing. (The veteran and his representative should be instructed that the hearing will address the medical expenses issues as well as a claim of service connection for PTSD that is on appeal from action taken by the RO.) The files should thereafter be returned together to the Board in advance of the hearing. 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 RO. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). ________________________________ 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).