Citation Nr: 0814242 Decision Date: 04/30/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 07-04 683 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Douglas J. Boorstein, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1954 to May 1975. This comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2006 rating decision in which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU). In July 2007, the veteran testified at a personal hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing is of record. 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 Unfortunately, a remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. In connection with this appeal, the veteran has submitted a CD-ROM containing records pertaining to his treatment at the VA Medical Center in Tampa, Florida during August 2007. The CD's label indicates that the CD-ROM contains studies of the veteran's hand, knee, and spine performed in August 2007. Unfortunately, this CD-ROM has been damaged. It is therefore necessary to remand this appeal to obtain these records. Records generated by VA facilities that may have an impact on the adjudication of a claim are considered constructively in the possession of VA adjudicators during the consideration of a claim, regardless of whether those records are physically on file. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466-67 (1998); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). Further, the Board notes that the veteran, in a form submitted in approximately April 2007, listed an employer for whom he previously worked but did not provide a street address for this employer. The RO wrote to the veteran in late April 2007 and indicated that if the address provided for this employer was insufficient for mailing, he should provide a sufficient address. A letter was sent by the RO to the employer but was returned to the RO because it lacked a street address. The RO should tell the veteran that the mail was returned to sender and ask him to provide a sufficient address. The veteran is advised that he has a duty to assist and cooperate with VA in developing evidence. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the veteran and ask him to provide a more specific address for the employer listed in his April 2007 letter, to include a street address. Advise the veteran that this information may be relevant to his claim. All correspondence should be associated with the claims file. 2. Obtain from the VA Medical Center in Tampa, Florida, a paper copy of all of the veteran's treatment records that have not already been associated with the claims file, in particular records documenting studies of the veteran's hand, knee, and spine performed in August 2007. 3. Undertake any additional development deemed necessary, e.g., obtaining a contemporaneous VA examination addressing the veteran's employability. Thereafter, adjudicate the veteran's claim of entitlement to a total rating for individual unemployability due to service- connected disabilities. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, send to the veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them the appropriate time within which to respond. The case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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). _________________________________________________ C. CRAWFORD 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).