Citation Nr: 0814714 Decision Date: 05/02/08 Archive Date: 05/12/08 DOCKET NO. 03-18 540A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased rating for mycosis fungoides, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Conner, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1956 to April 1961. This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2002 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. A hearing at the RO was held in June 2004 before Veterans Law Judge Charles E. Hogeboom. In a December 2004 decision, the Board denied a rating in excess of 30 percent for the veteran's service-connected skin disability. The veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). While the matter was pending before the Court, in January 2006, the veteran's then-attorney and a representative of VA's General Counsel, on behalf of the Secretary, filed a joint motion for remand. In a January 2006 order, the Court granted the motion, vacated the Board's December 2004 decision, and remanded the matter to the Board for readjudication. In April 2006, the Board remanded the matter to the RO for additional evidentiary development. As set forth in more detail below, another remand of this matter is required. 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 its previous April 2006 remand, the Board noted that in a July 2005 brief filed with the Court, the veteran had raised a claim of entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability. The Board referred this matter to the RO for appropriate action. A review of the record indicates that the RO has not yet addressed this claim. Thus, it is again referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND In a March 2008 letter, the veteran was advised that he was entitled to an additional Board hearing as the Veterans Law Judge who had conducted the June 2004 hearing was no longer employed by the Board. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7102 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707 (2007). Later that month, the veteran responded that he wished to attend another Board hearing via videoconference. Under applicable regulation, a hearing on appeal will be granted if a veteran, or his or her representative, expresses a desire to appear in person. 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (2007). The importance of responding to a request for a hearing is recognized under 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a)(3) (2007), as a Board decision may be vacated when there is a prejudicial failure to afford an appellant a personal hearing. In order to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, therefore, such a hearing must be scheduled. Videoconference hearings are scheduled by the RO. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.700, 20.704(a). Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following: The veteran should be scheduled, in accordance with appropriate procedures, for a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002). A copy of the notice to the veteran of the scheduling of the hearing should be placed in the record, keeping in mind the 30-day advance notice requirement specified at 38 C.F.R. § 19.76 (2007). The case should then 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 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). _________________________________________________ KATHLEEN K. GALLAGHER 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).