Citation Nr: 1304540	
Decision Date: 02/07/13    Archive Date: 02/19/13

DOCKET NO.  09-46 127	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to compensation for loss of vision under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002).


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	John S. Berry, Attorney


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Riley, Counsel 


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1951 to August 1951.  This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2009 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska.  

In June 2010, the Board denied the claim for entitlement to compensation for vision loss under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.  The Veteran appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).   In December 2011, the Court issued a memorandum decision that set aside the June 2010 Board decision and remanded the claim.  The appeal returned to the Board when it was remanded in July 2012 for additional development.  

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

The Veteran contends that compensation is warranted under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for loss of vision due to the negligence of VA employees at the Omaha VA Medical Center (VAMC).  In June 2008, the Veteran was seen at the Omaha VAMC for complaints of chest pain and shortness of breath.  After several days of observation, he was transferred to the Creighton University Medical Center (UMC) for a coronary artery bypass graph (CABG).  The surgery was performed on June 23, 2008, and several days later he experienced a loss of bilateral vision.  

In September 2012, VA received records of treatment from UMC and St. Joseph Hospital pertaining to the Veteran's June 2008 surgical procedure and loss of vision.  Neither the virtual nor the paper claims file indicates that this new evidence has been reviewed by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  In December 2012, the Board sent the Veteran a letter and asked that he indicate whether he wished to waive initial AOJ review of the new evidence.  No response to this request was received, and the Board must therefore remand the case back to the AOJ for the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). 

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.)

Readjudicate the claim on appeal with consideration of all evidence of record, including the private treatment records received in September 2012.  If the benefits sought are not fully granted, provide the Veteran and his representative a SSOC before returning the case to the Board, if otherwise in order.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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).



_________________________________________________
MILO H. HAWLEY
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).