Citation Nr: 1237882 Decision Date: 11/05/12 Archive Date: 11/09/12 DOCKET NO. 05-08 511 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bridgid D. Cleary, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1954 to September 1954, from October 4, 1955 to October 27, 1955, and from January 1962 to November 1962. This matter has come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2004 rating decision of the Columbia, South Carolina, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which reopened the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability and a nervous condition and denied the underlying the claims. In July 2008, the Board granted the Veteran's petition to reopen the claim for service connection for a right eye disability and denied the claims for service connection of a right eye disability and a psychiatric disability. The Veteran appealed the Board's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2010, the Board remanded the claims to comply with the Court Order. In December 2010, the Appeals Management Center issued a rating decision granting service connection for a dysthymic disorder (claimed as a nervous condition and emotional instability). Since this rating action represents a full grant of the benefits sought (i.e. service connection), this issue is no longer on appeal. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993). In August 2011, the Board remanded this case for further development. In addition to the paper claims file, there is a Virtual VA paperless claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review of the documents in such file reveals that they are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims file or are irrelevant to the issue on appeal. 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, this case must again be remanded for additional development. As noted in the Court decision and the May 2010 Board remand, the Veteran was scheduled for a non-VA optometry examination in March 2005. Those records are not included in the file. The VA outpatient treatment records include reference to this March 2005 optometry consult and note that examination notes have been scanned into the system. The actual scanned notes; however, are not included in the claims folder. In order to ensure that both the RO and the Board itself have the opportunity to review all relevant evidence of record, this record must be printed in its entirety and associated with the claims file. The most recent VA treatment records are dated in April 2010; in November 2011, the Veteran reported that "last year" he had his eyes "checked" at VA. His statement raises the possibility of more recent VA treatment records. VA treatment records are considered part of the record on appeal since they are within VA's constructive possession. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). Thus, VA should locate any additional VA treatment records related to the Veteran's eye disorders and associate them with the claims folder. Finally, as these records may ultimately impact the examiner's opinion regarding a medical nexus between the Veteran's current eye disorders and his military service, an addendum opinion that considers this additional evidence is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Locate and print the record of the March 2005 non-VA optometry consultation, which is noted to be scanned into the VISTA system. All reasonable efforts to obtain this record should be undertaken. 2. Request all VA treatment records pertaining to the Veteran's eyes not previously obtained, specifically those dated April 2010 or later. 3. Efforts to obtain the requested records should continue until the records are obtained; or it is reasonably certain that they do not exist or that further efforts would be futile. If any records cannot be obtained, the Veteran should be advised of this fact, told of the efforts made to obtain the records, and of any additional actions that will be taken with regard to his claim. 4. If additional records are obtained, refer the Veteran's claims folder with the newly received records to the January 2011 VA ophthalmology examiner or, if he is unavailable, to another suitably qualified VA examiner for the purpose of obtaining an addendum opinion in light of the additional evidence received. The examiner should clarify whether the newly received records would change any aspect of the previous opinion. 4. If the benefit sought on appeal is not fully granted, issue a supplemental statement of the case. Then return the appeal to the Board, if otherwise in order. 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ Mark D. Hindin 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) (2012).