Citation Nr: 1013501 Decision Date: 04/09/10 Archive Date: 04/29/10 DOCKET NO. 06-08 586 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for depression to include anxiety. 2. Entitlement to service connection for asthma. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. J. Drucker, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from February 1973 to January 1979. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. In April 2008, the Veteran testified during a personal hearing at the RO. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The Board notes that the Veteran also perfected an appeal as to the RO's April 2005 denial of his claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, in a signed statement, dated on April 16, 2008, the Veteran withdrew that claim from appellate status and said that he wished to continue with his remaining issues. The transcript of the Veteran's April 2008 RO hearing also reflects his request to withdraw that issue from appellate status (see hearing transcript at page 1). Thus, the July 2008 supplemental staement of the case (SSOC) addresses only the remaining three issues on appeal, and the matter of service connection for PTSD was not certified to the Board in November 2008. But, in a March 2010 written statement, the Veteran's service representative appears to have erroneously included a claim for service connection for PTSD among the matters at issue. Nevertheless, the Board is satisfied that the Veteran expressly withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD and that the issues as presently characterized on the title page most accurately represent the current status of his case. 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 The Veteran seeks service connection for hypertension. When examined for discharge on November 13, 1978, his blood pressure reading was 140/104. Post service private medical records include diagnoses of hypertension. During his April 2008 hearing at the RO, the Veteran testified that, after discharge, physicians noted his high blood pressure and he had "to try to get it down" before he was hired at BF Goodrich (hearing transcript at page 9). The Board believes that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of any currently diagnosed hypertension. In addition, the Veteran testified that he worked at BF Goodrich from 1986 to 1999 when he was approved for disability and took medical retirement (Id. at 9). Thus, it appears there may be medical records from the Veteran's employer pertinent to his claims that should be obtained prior to consideration of his case. Finally, the Veteran also indicated that he is treated for his psychiatric disorder at the VA medical facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Id. at 5). However, only medical records dated to August 2004 are in the claims file. Here, the record suggests that additional VA medical evidence might be available that is not before the Board at this time. Thus, an effort should be made to obtain additional VA medical records. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462 (1998); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran in writing and request that he provide the address of the BF Goodrich facility from which he was medically retired in 1999. Then, contact that corporation and request all medical records, including medical disability determinations, regarding the Veteran. If any records are unavailable, the Veteran and his representative should be so advised in writing. 2. Obtain all medical records regarding the Veteran's treatment at the VA medical facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, for the period from August 2004 to the present, and from any additional VA or non-VA medical provider identified by the Veteran. If any records are unavailable, the Veteran and his representative should be so advised in writing. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of any hypertension found to be present. A complete history of the claimed disorder should be obtained from the Veteran. All indicated tests and studies should be conducted and all clinical findings reported in detail. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review. a. The examiner is requested to diagnose any clinically evident hypertension. The examiner should then address whether it is at least as likely as not, i.e., is there a 50/50 chance, that any current hypertension is related to the appellant's active duty service (including the blood pressure reading of 140/104 noted on the November 13, 1978 separation examination report). The examiner is particularly requested to render an opinion as to whether this blood pressure reading represented the onset of any currently diagnosed hypertensive disorder. b. Any opinion offered MUST be accompanied by a fully explanatory written rationale and the examination report should indicate if the examiner reviewed the medical records. NOTE: The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean merely within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of causation as it is to find against it. 4. Thereafter, the AMC should review the record, including the medical opinion, to ensure that the Board's remand directives were accomplished. If the questions posed for the examiner were not answer, the case should be returned to the examiner. 5. Then readjudicate the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for depression with anxiety, asthma, and hypertension. If any claim remains denied, send him and his representative a SSOC and give them an opportunity to respond to it before returning the file to the Board for further appellate consideration. The appellant 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. 2009). _________________________________________________ Michael J. Skaltsounis 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).