Citation Nr: 1304002	
Decision Date: 02/05/13    Archive Date: 02/08/13

DOCKET NO.  10-02 199	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left ankle degenerative arthritis.

2.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease.

3.   Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative joint disease.

4.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left hip degenerative joint disease.

5.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right hip degenerative joint disease.

6.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for right carpal tunnel syndrome (dominant).

7.  Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right ankle instability.

8.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation bilateral hearing loss disability.

9.  Entitlement to service connection for loss of sense of smell.

10.  Entitlement to service connection for loss of sense of taste.

11.  Entitlement to service connection for vertigo.

12.  Entitlement to service connection for head injury.

13.  Entitlement to a total evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C.A. Skow, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1972 to August 1993.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from October 2007 and November 2009 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The record shows that the Veteran requested and later cancelled a hearing in connection with his October 2007 claims that were denied.

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.  VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required.


REMAND

As noted above, the Veteran has expressed disagreement with decision rendered in two separate rating decisions.  In connection with the rating decision issued in October 2007, he was scheduled for a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge sitting at the RO in St. Petersburg, Florida.  Prior to the date of the hearing, the Veteran informed the RO that he would not be able to attend the hearing for health reasons.  

Thereafter, the RO issued a January 2012 in response to the Veteran's disagreement with the November 2009 rating decision.  In March 2012, the Veteran responded by filing a substantive appeal asking for a Videoconference hearing before a Member of the Board.  The Veteran has not previously requested a hearing on the matters addressed in the January 2012 statement of the case, which were denied by the RO in November 2009.  Generally, a hearing on appeal will be granted if the appellant expresses a desire to appear in person.  38 C.F.R. § 20.700.  Accordingly, on remand, a videoconference hearing before a Member of the Board should be scheduled.

The Veteran is cautioned that any failure to appear for a properly scheduled hearing without good cause will be considered as a withdrawal of the hearing request.  38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d).  Further, it is noted that any request for a change in hearing date may be made at anytime up to two weeks prior to the scheduled date of the hearing if good cause is shown; however, such request must be in writing, must explain why the new hearing date is necessary, and must be filed with the office of the official of the VA who signed the notice of the original hearing date.  38 C.F.R. § 20.704(c).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should schedule the Veteran for a videoconference hearing before a member of the Board.

The Veteran 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).



_________________________________________________
DAVID L. WIGHT
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).