Citation Nr: 1237983 Decision Date: 11/06/12 Archive Date: 11/16/12 DOCKET NO. 05-36 186 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Harrigan Smith, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from April 1958 to March 1960; and from December 1961 to August 1962. The appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2005 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for a left eye defect of vision. The Veteran testified before a Hearing Officer at the RO in January 2006, and before a Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing at the RO in July 2006. Transcripts are of record. In August 2007, the Board denied the Veteran's request to reopen the previously denied claim for service connection for a left eye vision defect. The Veteran timely appealed that denial, and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in May 2008 granted a Joint Motion for Remand, vacating the Board's decision and remanding the case for actions pursuant to that Joint Motion. In August 2008, the Board remanded the claim for additional development. Upon the return of the case, the Board forwarded the issue to a Veterans Health Administration medical expert for an advisory opinion (VHA opinion) accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 20.901(a) (2012). The Veteran was provided a copy of the opinion in January 2010, and responded with his own statement in support of his claim. He indicated his wish for the Board to proceed with the adjudication of the appeal. In April 2010, the Board reopened the Veteran's claim and remanded the issue for additional development. In April 2012, the Veteran was notified that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted his July 2006 hearing was no longer employed at the Board and he was offered the opportunity for a new hearing. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(c) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707 (2012). The Veteran replied that same month that he did not wish to appear at another hearing. As such, the Board shall proceed to consider his appeal. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 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 recent years the Veteran has reported treatment for his left eye disability, from Dr. Stephanie Goei at the Medical College of Georgia in 2004; Dr. Bryant at Piedmont Health Group, LLC; and in his January 2011 statement, an unspecified civilian doctor. The Veteran has asserted that records from Dr. Goei, in particular, would yield evidence that he has additional disability as the result of in-service eye surgery. VA has adopted a regulation requiring that when it becomes aware of private treatment records it will specifically notify the claimant of the records and provide a release to obtain the records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(2) (2009). Since becoming aware of the private treatment records, it does not appear that VA has followed the procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(2). In a statement submitted in January 2010, the Veteran reported that he constantly felt as though he had something in his left eye, and that his private physicians informed him that the sensation was a result of scar tissue from his in-service surgery. There are no statements in the record to his effect. 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) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Ask the Veteran to complete authorizations for VA to obtain records of treatment for his left eye disability, from Dr. Stephanie Goei at the Medical College of Georgia, Dr. Bryant at Piedmont Health Group, LLC, and the civilian doctor mentioned in his January 2011 statement. If the Veteran fails to provide necessary authorization, tell him that he should obtain and submit the records himself. If any requested records cannot be obtained, inform the Veteran, tell him what efforts were made to obtain the records, and also tell him what additional efforts will be made with regard to his claim. 2. Tell the Veteran that he should submit statements from his private physicians in support of his contentions that his reported sensation of a foreign object in his eye is caused by residual scar tissue from his in-service eye surgery. 3. If any benefit on appeal remains denied, the AOJ should issue a supplemental statement of the case. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if 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).