Citation Nr: 1103874 Decision Date: 01/31/11 Archive Date: 02/08/11 DOCKET NO. 09-37 060 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral glaucoma. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for asthma with allergies. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Armstrong, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from December 1954 to May 24, 1957 and from May 25, 1957 to June 1960. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2009 rating decision of the St. Louis, Missouri Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2010, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. At the hearing, the Veteran sought, and was granted, a 90 day abeyance period for the submission of additional evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 20.709. In November 2010 he submitted additional evidence with a waiver of RO consideration. His claims file is now in the jurisdiction of the Chicago, Illinois RO. The appeal is being REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action on his part is required. REMAND The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), in part, describes VA's duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2010). The VCAA applies to the instant claims. While the notice provisions of the VCAA appear to be satisfied the Board finds that further development of the record is necessary to comply with VA's duty to assist the Veteran in the development of facts pertinent to the claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. In a November 2008 letter V.E.T., M.D. (of the Wabash Outpatient Clinic) noted that from his brief review of "[the Veteran's] records and previous notes" and according to the notes of a previous physician, the Veteran had been receiving immunotherapy since approximately 1968. He noted that the Veteran's first diagnosis of asthma was in 1994. He also noted (regarding cardiac disability) that the Veteran's cardiologist K.P. might have more detailed records, and indicated that if further records were needed he would be happy to send whatever was needed. A November 2010 letter from H.E.B., M.D. notes that the Veteran had a 47 to 52 year history of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. This suggests that the provider may have treatment records pertaining to such disabilities. In a January 2010 statement the Veteran noted that he received treatment for glaucoma from the Wabash Hospital Association, VA, and from S.S., D.O. He indicated that he received asthma/allergy treatment from VA and Dr. H.E.B. Review of the claims file found that clinical records of the identified treatment (to include up-to-date VA treatment records) have not been sought, and are not associated with the claims file. As such records were identified and may contain pertinent information, they must be secured for the record. The Veteran is advised that a governing regulation provides that when evidence (to include identifying information and releases) requested in connection with a claim for VA benefits is not furnished within a year after the date of request the claim is to be considered abandoned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should secure for the record copies of complete clinical records of all VA treatment the Veteran has received for the disabilities on appeal from December 2007 to the present. 2. The RO should ask the Veteran to identify all sources of evaluation and/or treatment he received for asthma and allergies, his cardiac disability, and bilateral glaucoma. He should provide a chronological listing of the providers, as well as any releases necessary for VA to secure private treatment/evaluation records. The RO must secure for association with the claims file copies of the complete records of evaluation and treatment from the identified providers, specifically including: 1) all records from the Wabash Outpatient Clinic (to include those specifically identified in the November 2008 letter of V.E.T., M.D.); 2) all records from cardiologist K.P; 3) all records from H.E.B., M.D; and 4) all records from S.S., D.O. If any private provider does not respond to the RO's request, the Veteran should be so notified, and advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that the records are received. 3. If the results of the above-requested development suggest any further development, i.e., indicate that the Veteran's asthma and allergies and/or cardiac disability may be associated with his service, the RO should arrange for the development indicated (to include a VA nexus examination, if deemed necessary). 4. The RO should then re-adjudicate the claims. If any remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, for further review. 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). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. _________________________________________________ George R. Senyk 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).