Citation Nr: 1002018 Decision Date: 01/12/10 Archive Date: 01/22/10 DOCKET NO. 05-19 070 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension to include as being secondary to the Veteran's service-connected type 2 diabetes mellitus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for heart disease to include as being secondary to the Veteran's service-connected type 2 diabetes mellitus. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a disability of the lumbar segment of the spine. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nadine W. Benjamin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1968 to June 1974; he also had three years, five months, and twenty-one days of undocumented active duty service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), located in St. Louis, Missouri. In October 2007, the Board remanded this claim to the RO for additional development. The case has been returned to the Board and is ready for further review. 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. The Veteran was examined by VA in October 2009. At that time the VA examiner referred to VA records that he had reviewed that were dated in October 2005, and January and December 2008. It was noted that the Veteran had undergone an MRI of the neck 2008 which was not in the chart. The most recent VA records in the file are dated in 2004. Because VA is on notice that there are VA records that may be applicable to the Veteran's claim and because these records may be of use in deciding the claims, these records are relevant and must be obtained and associated with the claims file. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2009); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Additionally, the Veteran reported to the October 2009 VA examiner that he had received treatment from several private clinicians from 2004 to 2009. The Veteran reported treatment from a diabetic specialist, Dr. Chase, until about a year and a half prior to the examination. Thereafter, he received treatment from Dr. Tuliapana, as well as from Drs. Myears, Baron, Zolfaghari, and Itani. He also noted treatment from Dr. Thompson, a chiropractor, two years prior to the VA examination. None of the records from these clinicians have been requested by VA. When VA is put on notice of the existence of private medical records, VA must attempt to obtain those records before proceeding with the appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1) (2009); See Lind v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 493, 494 (1992); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding records of evaluation and/or treatment of the Veteran from the VA Healthcare System since 2004. All efforts to obtain these records must be documented in the claims folder. 2. Send the Veteran and his representative a letter requesting that the Veteran provide sufficient information and authorization to enable it to obtain any additional private evidence pertinent to his appeal that is not currently of record. The Veteran should specifically be requested to provide authorization to obtain all outstanding pertinent records from (but not exclusively from) Drs. Chase, Tuliapana, Myears, Baron, Zolfaghari, and Itani as well as from the chiropractor, Dr. Thompson. If any records sought are not obtained, the RO should notify the Veteran of the records that were not obtained, explain the efforts taken to obtain them, and describe further action to be taken. 3. Following completion of the above, the claims should be readjudicated. If any benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be provided an opportunity to respond. The claim should be returned to the Board as warranted. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ LANA K. JENG Acting 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) (2009).