Citation Nr: 1237492 Decision Date: 11/01/12 Archive Date: 11/09/12 DOCKET NO. 06-14 278A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a digestive disorder. 2. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for prostate cancer. 3. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for asbestosis. 4. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for dermatitis. 5. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD H. Bunker, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to July 1971. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing at the RO in Seattle, Washington in May 2008. This transcript has been associated with the file. The Veteran was notified in May 2012 that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted his May 2012 hearing was no longer at the Board. The Veteran did not respond indicating that he wanted a new hearing before a different judge. As such, the Board will adjudicate the claims based on the evidence of record. This case was previously brought before the Board in August 2008 at which time the claims were remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to further assist the Veteran with the development of his appeal. The case was again before the Board in November 2010 at which time the claims were again remanded. The case is once again before the Board. 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 Unfortunately, a remand is required again in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. The Board notes that at a June 2011 VA examination the Veteran indicated that he was receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, there are no records from the SSA found in the claims file. Therefore, on remand the AOJ should request any possible available SSA records. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 370 (1992) (VA's duty to assist includes obtaining SSA decision and supporting medical records pertinent to VA claim); Collier v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 413, 417 (1991) (VA cannot ignore SSA determination of disability but must provide reasons or bases regarding such determination). The Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, asbestosis, dermatitis, and PTSD were recently granted in a May 2012 rating decision. The Veteran then submitted a timely notice of disagreement in May 2012 as to the ratings assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.305 (2011). The RO has not issued a statement of the case to the Veteran which addresses his notice of disagreement for increased evaluations for prostate cancer, asbestosis, dermatitis, and PTSD. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has made it clear that the proper course of action when a timely notice of disagreement has been filed is to remand the matter. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). Appropriate action, including issuance of a statement of the case, is now necessary with regard to these issues. 38 C.F.R. § 19.26 (2011). The Veteran will then have the opportunity to file a timely substantive appeal if he wishes to complete an appeal. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ must request from the SSA complete copies of any disability determination(s) it has made concerning the Veteran and copies of the medical records that served as the basis for any such decision(s). Requests must continue until the AOJ determines that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. All efforts to obtain these records should be documented in the claims folders. If the records do not exist or further efforts to obtain those records would be futile, the Veteran and his representative are to be notified of unsuccessful efforts in this regard so that they have an opportunity to obtain and submit those records for VA review. 2. Issue a statement of the case for the claims of increased evaluations for prostate cancer, asbestosis, dermatitis, and PTSD. All appropriate appellate procedures should then be followed. The Veteran should be advised that he must complete his appeal of these issues by filing a timely substantive appeal following the issuance of a statement of the case. 3. After completing the above, and any other development deemed necessary, the AOJ should readjudicate the remaining claim on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and 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. 2011). _________________________________________________ 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) (2011).