Citation Nr: 1102846 Decision Date: 01/24/11 Archive Date: 02/01/11 DOCKET NO. 09-15 697 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to 38 U.S.C. § 1151 compensation for acquired loss of sense of smell (anosmia), claimed as the result of a septorhinoplasty procedure performed on June 17, 2002, at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center. 2. Entitlement to 38 U.S.C. § 1151 compensation for acquired loss of sense of taste (ageusia), claimed as the result of a septorhinoplasty procedure performed on June 17, 2002, at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bernard T. DoMinh, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1952 to February 1964. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2008 rating decision by the Muskogee, Oklahoma, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for acquired loss of sense of smell (anosmia) and taste (ageusia), claimed as the result of a septorhinoplasty procedure performed on June 17, 2002, at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center (VAMC) to treat his service-connected deviated septum. For the reason that will be discussed below, the appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, D.C. VA will notify the appellant and his representative if any further action is required on their part. This case has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2010). REMAND The Veteran's substantive appeal of the RO's denial of his present claim for § 1151 compensation was received by VA in May 2009, via a VA Form 9, in which he requested to be scheduled for a videoconference hearing before the Board, to be held at the RO. Pursuant to his request, he was duly notified in correspondence dated in December 2010 that he was scheduled for the requested hearing, to be held in late January 2011. Thereafter, the Veteran's appeal was received by the Board in late December 2010. Afterwards, in early January 2011, several weeks prior to the date of the scheduled videoconference hearing, the Veteran communicated via telephone with a VA representative at the RO, requesting that VA change his hearing from a videoconference hearing to an in-person hearing before a traveling Veterans Law Judge from the Board, sitting at the RO. The RO promptly forwarded this request to the Board. The case is thus remanded to the RO to accommodate the Veteran's timely request. (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2010). Expedited handling is requested.) Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO via the AMC for the following action: The RO should reschedule the Veteran for his requested hearing before a traveling Veterans Law Judge from the Board, sitting at the RO. The RO should notify the Veteran and his representative of the date and time of the hearing, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(b) (2010). After the hearing, or if the Veteran fails to report for the scheduled hearing or withdraws his hearing request, the claims file should be returned to the Board in accordance with current appellate procedures. The purpose of this REMAND is to afford due process; it is not the Board's intent to imply whether the benefits requested should be granted or denied. The appellant need take no action until otherwise notified, but he may furnish additional evidence and/or argument during the appropriate time frame. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999); Colon v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 104, 108 (1996); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992). 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 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2010). _________________________________________________ BARBARA B. COPELAND 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) (2010).