Citation Nr: 0814562 Decision Date: 05/02/08 Archive Date: 05/12/08 DOCKET NO. 05-29 360 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Anchorage, Alaska THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist, with degenerative changes of the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joints. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Brian J. Milmoe, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1983 to February 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision entered in May 2004 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Anchorage, Alaska, granting entitlement of the veteran to service connection for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist and assigning a 0 percent schedular evaluation therefor, effective from March 1, 2003. The RO by subsequent action in July 2005 increased the initial schedular rating from 0 percent to 10 percent, effective from March 1, 2003, with recharacterization of the disability in question to that of a ganglion cyst of the right wrist and associated degenerative changes of the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joints. Subsequent actions by and on behalf of the veteran indicate that the July 2005 determination was not fully satisfactory to the veteran in terms of the initial rating assigned. The issue of the veteran's entitlement to an initial extraschedular rating in excess of 10 percent for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist is REMANDED to the RO via the VA's Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action on his part is required. FINDINGS OF FACT From March 1, 2003, to the present, the veteran's service- connected ganglion cyst of the right wrist, with degenerative changes of the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joint, was manifested by subjective complaints of pain and some limitation of motion, but without an objective showing of ankylosis or pain or functional loss leading to a further reduction in range of motion. CONCLUSION OF LAW From March 1, 2003, to the present, the schedular criteria for the assignment of an initial or staged schedular rating in excess of 10 percent for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist, with degenerative changes of the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joints, have not been met. U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5020, 5215 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000), VA first has a duty to provide an appropriate claim form, instructions for completing it, and notice of information necessary to complete the claim if it is incomplete. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5102; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(2). Second, VA has a duty to notify the appellant of the information and evidence needed to substantiate and complete a claim, notice of what part of that evidence is to be provided by the claimant, and notice of what part VA will attempt to obtain for the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 373-74 (2002); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). Third, VA has a duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence needed to substantiate a claim. This assistance includes obtaining all relevant evidence adequately identified in the record, and in some cases, affording VA examinations. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Finally, VA has a duty to notify the appellant that he or she should submit all pertinent evidence in his possession. During the pendency of this appeal, a decision was entered by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in the consolidated appeal of Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), which held that the VCAA requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) apply to all five elements of a service connection claim. Those five elements include: 1) Veteran's status; 2) existence of disability; 3) a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; 4) degree of disability; and 5) effective date of the disability. The Court held that the VCAA notice must include notice that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded. For an increased-compensation claim, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) requires, at a minimum, that the Secretary notify the claimant that, to substantiate a claim, the claimant must provide, or ask the Secretary to obtain, medical or lay evidence demonstrating a worsening or increase in severity of the disability and the effect that worsening has on the claimant's employment and daily life. Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 37 (2008). Further, if the Diagnostic Code (DC) under which the claimant is rated contains criteria necessary for entitlement to a higher disability rating that would not be satisfied by the claimant demonstrating a noticeable worsening or increase in severity of the disability and the effect that worsening has on the claimant's employment and daily life (such as a specific measurement or test result), the Secretary must provide at least general notice of that requirement to the claimant. Additionally, the claimant must be notified that, should an increase in disability be found, a disability rating will be determined by applying relevant DCs, which typically provide for a range in severity of a particular disability from noncompensable to as much as 100 percent (depending on the disability involved), based on the nature of the symptoms of the condition for which disability compensation is being sought, their severity and duration, and their impact upon employment and daily life. As with proper notice for an initial disability rating and consistent with the statutory and regulatory history, the notice must also provide examples of the types of medical and lay evidence that the claimant may submit (or ask the Secretary to obtain) that are relevant to establishing entitlement to increased compensation, e.g., competent lay statements describing symptoms, medical and hospitalization records, medical statements, employer statements, job application rejections, and any other evidence showing an increase in the disability or exceptional circumstances relating to the disability. Id. In this case, the Board finds that there is no issue as to providing an appropriate application form or completeness of the application. Written notice of the information and evidence needed by the veteran-appellant to substantiate and complete his claim for service connection for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist, notice of what part of that evidence is to be provided by the claimant, and notice of what part VA will attempt to obtain for the appellant was provided to him through the RO's VCAA letter of October 2003. The appellant was thereby notified that he should submit all pertinent evidence in his possession. The record further reflects that the veteran was advised of the Court's holding in Dingess/Hartman by the RO's letter of March 2006 to him. Here, the veteran is challenging the initial evaluation and/or effective date assigned following the grant of service connection. In Dingess, the Court held that in cases where service connection has been granted and an initial disability rating and effective date have been assigned, the typical service-connection claim has been more than substantiated, it has been proven, thereby rendering section 5103(a) notice no longer required because the purpose that the notice is intended to serve has been fulfilled. Id. at 490-91. Thus, because the notice that was provided before service connection was granted was legally sufficient, VA's duty to notify in this case has been satisfied. VCAA notice is to be furnished to a claimant before the initial unfavorable agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on a claim. Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004). Here, the initial VCAA notice letter was prepared and furnished to the veteran-appellant prior to the RO's initial decision as to the grant of service connection and the assignment of the initial rating and effective date, in accord with Pelegrini. Notice of the holding in Dingess- Hartman was furnished subsequent to the initial adjudication of such claim. Where, as here, the VCAA notice is defective, the Board must presume that the error was prejudicial, and VA bears the burden of rebutting said presumption. Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (2007) (recognizing that "VCAA notice errors are reviewed under a prejudicial error rule" and holding that "all VCAA notice errors are presumed prejudicial and . . . VA has the burden of rebutting this presumption"); see also Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 103, 111-16 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In Sanders, the Federal Circuit held that any error by VA in providing the notice required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1) is presumed prejudicial and that once an error is identified by the Veterans Court (Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims), the burden shifts to VA to demonstrate that the error was not prejudicial. The Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' holding that an appellant before the Court has the initial burden of demonstrating prejudice due to VA error involving: (1) providing notice of the parties' respective obligations to obtain the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claim: (2) requesting that the claimant provide any pertinent evidence in the claimant's possession; and (3) failing to provide notice before a decision on the claim by the agency of original jurisdiction. An error "whether procedural or substantive, is prejudicial when [it] affects a substantial right so as to injure an interest that the statutory or regulatory provision involved was designed to protect such that the error affects 'the essential fairness of the [adjudication].'" Mayfield, supra, at 116; accord Sanders. That is, "the key to determining whether an error is prejudicial is the effect of the error on the essential fairness of the adjudication." Id. "[A]n error is not prejudicial when [it] did not affect 'the essential fairness of the [adjudication],'" Mayfield, supra, at 121, and non-prejudicial error may be proven by a showing that "the purpose of [VCAA] notice was not frustrated, e.g., by demonstrating: (1) that any defect was cured by actual knowledge on the part of the claimant, (2) that a reasonable person could be expected to understand from the [defective] notice what was needed, or (3) that a benefit could not have been awarded as a matter of law." Sanders, 487 F.3d at 889. accord Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 30 (2007) (determining that no prejudicial error to veteran resulted in defective VCAA notice when the veteran, through his counsel, displayed actual knowledge of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate his claim). Accordingly, "there could be no prejudice if the purpose behind the notice has been satisfied . . . that is, affording a claimant a meaningful opportunity to participate effectively in the processing of [the] claim. . . ." Mayfield, supra, at 128. To show that the error did not affect the essential fairness of the adjudication, VA must demonstrate that the purpose of the notice was not frustrated, such as by demonstrating: (1) That any defect was cured by actual knowledge on the part of the claimant, per Vazquez-Flores ("(a)ctual knowledge is established by statements or actions by the claimant or the claimant's representative that demonstrate an awareness of what was necessary to substantiate his or her claim.") (citing Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 30-31 (2007)); (2) that a reasonable person could be expected to understand from the notice what was needed; or (3) that a benefit could not have been awarded as a matter of law. Sanders, 487 F.3d at 889. Additionally, consideration also should be given to "whether the post-adjudicatory notice and opportunity to develop the case that is provided during the extensive administrative appellate proceedings leading to the final Board decision and final Agency adjudication of the claim ... served to render any pre-adjudicatory section 5103(a) notice error non-prejudicial." Vazquez-Flores, supra. The record in this instance demonstrates that full VCAA notice was effectuated prior to the issuance of the final supplemental statement of the case by the AMC in July 2007. See Prickett v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 370, 376-78 (2006) (validating the remedial measures of issuing fully compliant VCAA notification and readjudicating the claim in the form of a supplemental statement of the case to cure timing of a notification defect). More timely VCAA notice would not have operated to alter the outcome of the issue on appeal, in view of the fact that the record does not identify a factual predicate for entitlement to an initial schedular rating in excess of 10 percent for the disorder in question from March 1, 2003, to the present. Sanders, supra (recognizing that "a demonstration that the outcome would not have been different in the absence of the error would demonstrate that there was no prejudice"). In view of the foregoing, the Board cannot conclude that any defect in the timing of the notice provided affected the essential fairness of the adjudication, and, thus, the presumption of prejudice is rebutted. Id. It is also pertinent to note that Vazquez-Flores involved a claim for an increased rating whereas this case concerns the propriety of an initial evaluation, rather than a claimed increase in an existing evaluation. Since the issue in this case is downstream from that of service connection (for which a VCAA letter was duly sent in October 2003), according to VAOPGCPREC 8-2003 (Dec. 22, 2003), another VCAA notice is not required. Moreover, in terms of the Vazquez-Flores requirements, the record reflects that the RO has directly advised the veteran that, because he is already rated at the 10 percent level, any rating in excess thereof would necessitate a showing of pain and functional loss resulting in additional limitation of motion, or of ankylosis of the right wrist. The veteran has acknowledged his receipt of this information and the allegations he advances are reflective of the applicable rating criteria, to include those involving pain and limitation of motion. In view of the foregoing, the Board cannot conclude that prejudice would result to the appellant were the Board to enter a final decision as to his claim for a higher initial or staged rating for his right wrist disability. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). Finally, all pertinent examination and treatment records have been obtained and made a part of the appellant's claims folder to the extent that such records have been adequately identified or are otherwise available. Notice is taken that the evidence of record includes various medical records compiled since the veteran's retirement from active service, in addition to reports of two VA medical examinations afforded the veteran in connection with the instant appeal. Findings from the VA medical examinations are sufficiently detailed and comprehensive in scope so as to permit the Board to fairly and accurately rate the disability in question. To that end, the Board may proceed to adjudicate the merits of the claims for increase, without further remand as to those matters. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.326, 3.327. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that VA has satisfied its duties under the VCAA. Merits of the Claim Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate DCs identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and there must be emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Examination reports are to be interpreted in light of the whole recorded history, and each disability must be considered from the point of view of the appellant working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. By rating action in May 2004, the RO granted entitlement of the veteran to service connection for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist, for which a 0 percent evaluation was assigned under DC 5020, effective from March 1, 2003. A timely appeal as to the rating then assigned was initiated by the veteran and later perfected within the time limits prescribed by law. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999) (at the time of initial rating, separate or "staged" ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found). By subsequent action of the RO in July 2005, the schedular evaluation was increased from 0 percent to 10 percent under DC 5020, effective from March 1, 2003, with the grant of service connection being expanded to include degenerative changes of the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joints. DC 5020 provides that synovitis is to be rated on limitation of motion of affected parts, as degenerative arthritis. Degenerative arthritis is rated in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5003, which provides that when arthritis is established by X-ray findings it will be rated on the basis of limitation of motion under the appropriate DCs for the specific joint or joints involved. Where the limitation of motion of the specific joint involved is noncompensable under the appropriate DCs, a 10 percent rating is for application for each such major joint or group of minor joints affected by limitation of motion, to be combined, not added, under DC 5003. DC 5215 provides for a 10 percent rating for limitation of motion of the wrist where dorsiflexion is less than 15 degrees or where palmar flexion is limited in line with forearm. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5215. No evaluation in excess of 10 percent is for assignment under DC 5215. For VA purposes, normal dorsiflexion of the wrist is from 0 to 70 degrees, and normal palmar flexion is from 0 to 80 degrees. Normal ulnar deviation of the wrist is from 0 to 45 degrees, and normal radial deviation is from 0 to 20 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate I (2007). The DCs pertaining to impairment of the elbow, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers apply different disability ratings based upon whether the major or minor arm is affected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5213 through 5230. Under DC 5214, a 50 percent rating is assigned for ankylosis of the major wrist when ankylosis is unfavorable, in any degree of palmar flexion, or with ulnar or radial deviation. A 40 percent rating is assigned for ankylosis of the major wrist when there is ankylosis in any other position except favorable. A 30 percent rating is assigned for ankylosis of the major wrist that is favorable in 20 degrees to 30 degrees dorsiflexion. Extremely unfavorable ankylosis will be rated as loss of use of the hands under DC 5125. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5214. Regardless of the criteria, when assigning a disability rating it is necessary to consider functional loss due to flare-ups, fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 206-7 (1995). Under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, the rating for an orthopedic disorder must reflect functional limitation which is due to pain, as supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is also as important as limitation of motion, and a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. A little used part of the musculoskeletal system may be expected to show evidence of disuse, either through atrophy, the condition of the skin, absence of normal callosity, or the like. Allegations are advanced by the veteran that he is bothered by constant pain of the right wrist, to include upon movement or motion, which necessitates the wearing of a splint on occasion, and that there is limited movement of his right wrist joint. Despite the veteran's allegations, it was noted at the time of a VA medical examination in November 2003 that his ganglion cyst of the right wrist was not restricting motion. In April 2005, the veteran sought medical assistance from a service department facility for chronic right wrist pain, with examination showing tenderness of the snuff box and scapholunate, positive grinding, normal range of motion, and no swelling or tenderness. Muscle strength was 5/5 and sensation was found to be intact. X-rays revealed minimal degenerative changes at the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joints. Use of a cock-up splint for two to three weeks was prescribed. Subsequent medical treatment for right wrist complaints is not shown by the record. On a VA examination in March 2006, there was no obvious deformity of the right hand and no edema, bruising, or redness was shown. Well-healed scarring about the right wrist was present from an in-service procedure for removal of a ganglion cyst, and there was good grip and finger strength to resistance. His neurovascular status was judged to be intact. Evidence of incoordination, weakness, or fatigue with repetitive motion was absent. There was tenderness over the ulna and approximately seven centimeters above ulna, as well as over the snuff box. Wrist dorsiflexion was from 0 to 40 degrees; palmar flexion was from 0 to 50 degrees; radial deviation was from 0 to 20 degrees, with a complaint of pain in the snuff box region; and ulnar deviation was from 0 to 35 degrees. X-rays demonstrated no significant abnormality of the right wrist. In the opinion of the examiner, findings on examination and history were compatible with tendonitis or strain. No functional loss, incoordination, weakness, fatigue, or pain with repetitive motion was found. Only subjective tenderness was noted to be present in the area of the right wrist. Evidence on file discloses the existence of limitation of motion of the veteran's right wrist in association with degenerative arthritis; however, the degree to which right wrist motion is limited is noncompensable under DC 5215. Under DC 5003, a 10 percent rating is for assignment where the limitation of motion of the specific joint or joints involved is noncompensable under the appropriate DCs, a rating of 10 percent is for application for each such major joint or group of minor joints affected, as is the case here. See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2007); Lichtenfels v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 484, 488 (1991). Under the facts of this case, where there is demonstrated to be limitation of motion, DC 5003 does not provide a basis for assignment of a schedular evaluation in excess of 10 percent. Moreover, the presence of ankylosis is not objectively indicated, such as might warrant the assignment of a higher schedular evaluation under DC 5214. The maximum rating for limitation of motion of a major or minor wrist is 10 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5215. In all, the record fails to document a basis for the assignment of an initial or staged schedular rating greater than 10 percent at any time from March 1, 2003, to the present. Fenderson, supra. As to whether any further increase might be in order on 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45 and DeLuca, the Board notes that there was a showing on one occasion in April 2005 of diagnosis of chronic right wrist pain, but a wrist splint was prescribed at that time, and subsequent treatment for continued pain is not otherwise documented by the record. As well, only subjective complaints of pain were set forth at the time of the VA's most recent examination in March 2006, and there was at that time no objective evidence of pain or painful motion or clinical finding or opinion regarding functional loss, incoordination, weakness, fatigue, or pain with repetitive motion. Moreover, the veteran's right wrist pain is contemplated in the assignment of the current 10 percent rating and the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 cannot support a higher rating because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that there is no basis for a rating higher than the maximum scheduler rating for additional limitation of motion due to pain or functional loss under these provisions. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5214; VAOPGCPREC 36- 97; Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 85 (1997). Thus, there is no basis to support an initial or staged rating in excess of 10 percent for the veteran's right wrist disability under the DeLuca, supra. For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that denial of the veteran's claim for an initial schedular rating in excess of 10 percent for a right wrist disorder is required and there is no basis for application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); see also Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that "the benefit of the doubt rule is inapplicable when the preponderance of the evidence is found to be against the claimant"); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). ORDER An initial or staged schedular evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist, with degenerative changes of the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joints, is denied. REMAND The veteran in this instance has also advanced a claim of extraschedular entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for his right wrist ganglion and associated arthritis, on the basis of a marked interference by such disability upon his employment as a mechanic. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (2007). In his substantive appeal, received by the RO in September 2005, the veteran specifically alleged that he was a mechanic by trade and that it was nearly impossible for him to perform work requiring use of hand tools. Notice is taken that the Board does not have the authority to assign, in the first instance, a higher rating on an extraschedular basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 377 (1996). Here, the RO has not developed or adjudicated the question of whether the veteran's right wrist disability warrants consideration for an extraschedular rating pursuant to the cited legal authority. In light of the veteran's allegation of significant industrial impairment, a remand is thus required to facilitate such action. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Consistent with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2007), the appellant must be notified by written correspondence of any information and evidence not of record (1) that is necessary to substantiate his claim for an initial or staged extraschedular rating in excess of 10 percent for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist with degenerative changes; (2) that VA will seek to provide; (3) that the veteran is expected to provide; and (4) must ask the veteran to provide any evidence in his possession that pertains to the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1). The AMC should then obtain any relevant VA or other government records that are identified and assist the veteran in securing records of evaluation or treatment for his right wrist disorder from service department and/or private medical professionals or treatment facilities, or other evidence identified by the veteran, provided that he furnishes sufficient identifying information and written authorization. Specifically regarding the veteran's claim for an extraschedular evaluation for his right wrist, he should be advised in particular of the need to submit lay and/or medical evidence of frequent hospitalization for its treatment, and/or that his service-connected right wrist disorder, alone, results in a marked interference with his employment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (2007). Submission of hospitalization records and/or statements or records from his current and former employers or co-workers as to work-related restrictions, use of sick leave, etc., would be advisable. Depending upon the appellant's response, any and all assistance due him must then be provided by VA. 2. Thereafter, the veteran's claim for entitlement to an initial or staged rating in excess of 10 percent for a ganglion cyst of the right wrist, with degenerative changes of the first metacarpophalangeal and first carpometacarpal joints, on an extraschedular basis should be adjudicated on the basis of all the evidence on file and all governing legal authority, to include 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) (2007) and the holding in Fenderson, supra. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case, which must contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits and the dispositive law and regulations. An appropriate period of time should then be allowed for a response, before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The veteran need take no action until otherwise notified. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the AMC/RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). The purpose of this remand is to preserve the veteran's due process rights. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim in question as a result of this action. ____________________________________________ R. F. WILLIAMS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs