Citation Nr: 1105470 Decision Date: 02/09/11 Archive Date: 02/18/11 DOCKET NO. 05-29 288 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for dizziness. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a kidney disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for tension headaches. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. 6. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tresa M. Schlecht, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from April 1951 to March 1952. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2005 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied TDIU. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2010). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). 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 In an August 2009 rating decision, the RO denied claims of entitlement to service connection for five disorders. In September 2009, the Veteran stated that he had received the denial of the "five (5) conditions," and that it was his decision "to let you know my disagreement on such matter." The Board interprets this as a notice of disagreement (NOD) to the August 2009 rating decision. Accordingly, the Veteran is entitled to a statement of the case (SOC) addressing the five denied claims. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) (when an appellant files a timely NOD as to a particular issue, and no SOC is furnished, the Board should remand, rather than refer, the claim for the issuance of an SOC). As the claim of entitlement to an award of TDIU may be affected by the ultimate decision on each of these claims, the Board cannot complete adjudication of the claim for TDIU at this time. 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) (2010). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Issue a statement of the case addressing each of the claims included in an August 2009 rating decision. Provide the Veteran with specific notice that he has not perfected appeal as to each of these issues, even though he has perfected appeal as the claim for an award of TDIU. Advise the Veteran of the time period allowed to him to perfect appeal of any additional issue he wishes to appeal. 2. Obtain a computerized list of the Veteran's VA appointments for treatment of the service- connected psychiatric disability, beginning in August 2003 (one year prior to the Veteran's formal August 2004 claim for TDIU), and for treatment of any other disability for which service connection may be in effect when the claims file is to be returned to the Board. Review the claims file to assure that a treatment note reflecting each appointment for treatment of a service-connected disorder is associated with the claims file. 3. Review the April 2010 VA examination regarding the severity of the service-connected psychiatric disability. If there is a claim by the Veteran that the psychiatric disability has increased in severity, or if the current treatment records suggest an increased severity, or the examination is no longer current, afford the Veteran VA examination. 4. Conduct any necessary development relating to any appealed issue, and issue any communications required for procedural due process. After the above actions have been completed, readjudicate the Veteran's claims. If the claims remain denied, issue to the Veteran a supplemental statement of the case, and afford the appropriate period of time within which to respond thereto. 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. 2010). _________________________________________________ MARJORIE A. AUER 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).