Citation Nr: 1014567 Decision Date: 04/16/10 Archive Date: 04/29/10 DOCKET NO. 08-24 269 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to an effective date prior to April 17, 2006 for a 10 percent disability rating for sarcoidosis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and J.B. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Patel, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2009). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The Veteran served on active duty from December 1951 to January 1955. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida, which granted a 10 percent rating for sarcoidosis, effective April 17, 2006. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Travel Board hearing in January 2010. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the claims file. The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for sarcoidosis has been raised by the record, specifically in the January 2010 Travel Board hearing, but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, D.C. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND Historically, the Veteran was granted service connection for sarcoidosis in an October 1955 rating decision and assigned a 10 percent disability rating, effective January 20, 1955. In a July 1957 rating decision, the Veteran's disability rating for sarcoidosis was reduced to 0 percent. He filed a claim for an increased rating in April 2006, and in the May 2006 rating decision on appeal, he was granted a 10 percent rating effective April 17, 2006. At the time of the January 2010 Board hearing the Veteran initially stated that the basis for his claim for an earlier effective date for the 10 percent rating for sarcoidosis was that he did not get notice of the 1957 VA examination that had been scheduled for him. However, upon later questioning he recalled that he had been examined by VA in 1957 and did not agree with the July 1957 rating decision that reduced his rating to a noncompensable rating. He stated that he did not understand how he could be considered "cured" in 1957, and told in 2006 that he did have residuals resulting in the assignment of the currently assigned 10 percent rating. He stated that his condition never improved after his discharge from service, and that he essentially self-medicated over the years. See January 2010 Travel Board Hearing Transcript. The Board finds that his testimony essentially amounts to a claim of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a July 2, 1957 rating decision which reduced the 10 percent rating for sarcoidosis to 0 percent (noncompensable). In that regard, the Veteran's allegation of CUE serves as one of the pillars of his current argument that the 10 percent rating assigned in May 2006 should be effective from the date of the reduction. Therefore, the current claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date must be remanded and adjudicated by the RO/AMC in conjunction with the newly raised CUE claim. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (where a claim is inextricably intertwined with another claim, the claims must be adjudicated together in order to enter a final decision on the matter). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2009). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. The RO/AMC should adjudicate whether an effective date prior to April 17, 2006 for the award of a 10 percent disability rating for sarcoidosis is warranted on the basis of CUE in a July 2, 1957 rating decision which reduced the 10 percent rating for sarcoidosis to 0 percent (noncompensable). The RO/AMC should notify the Veteran and his representative of the decision and of the Veteran's appellate rights. If the CUE aspect of this claim is denied and the Veteran files a timely notice of disagreement, the RO/AMC should issue an appropriate statement of the case on this issue and notify the Veteran and his representative that the CUE issue will be before the Board only if a timely substantive appeal is submitted. 2. Upon completion of the requested development, the RO/AMC should again review the claim of entitlement to an effective date prior to April 17, 2006 for the award of a 10 percent disability rating for sarcoidosis, considering the determination in the CUE claim. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case, and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. 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). _________________________________________________ S. L. Kennedy 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).