Citation Nr: 1304776 Decision Date: 02/08/13 Archive Date: 02/19/13 DOCKET NO. 08-07 324 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability other than peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability, to include as secondary to service-connected degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Fitch, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1965 to March 1967, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. He received the Purple Heart Medal and Combat Infantryman Badge. These matters initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. In December 2010, the Board remanded claims of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, a left foot disability, a bilateral shoulder disability, a right arm disability, a bilateral hand disability, and a lower back disability for further development. In May 2012, the Board denied service connection for a bilateral hand disability, a right arm disability, a bilateral shoulder disability, and a right knee disability. The issues of entitlement to service connection for left foot and low back disabilities were remanded for additional development and adjudication. In the May 2012 decision, the Board also found that the issues of whether new and material evidence had been received to reopen a claim for service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), entitlement to service connection for headache, left arm, and sleep disabilities, and entitlement to an increased rating for Type II diabetes mellitus had been raised by the record, but had not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board found that it did not have jurisdiction over them, and they were referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. The Board notes that, in addition to the Veteran's claims file, the Veteran also has a Virtual VA paperless claims file, which is a highly secured electronic repository that is used to store and review documents involved in the claims process. The Board has reviewed the contents of the paperless file as well as the Veteran's claims file and will proceed with review of the claims based upon all relevant evidence. 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 December 2012, the Veteran submitted a statement in which he asked that adjudication of his appeals be delayed because he had an upcoming appointment at Raleigh Neurological for evaluation of pain, nerve, tingling, and numbness in the parts of his body for which he was requesting service connection. To date, this medical evidence has not been associated with the Veteran's claims file. As the Veteran has identified additional medical evidence relevant to his claim, VA has a duty to obtain these records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1) (2012). 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 provide authorization for VA to obtain records of his evaluation at Raleigh Neurological identified in his December 2012 statement. If the Veteran does not provide the authorization, tell him that he can obtain and submit the records himself. If any requested records cannot be obtained, inform the Veteran of this fact, of the efforts made to obtain the records and of any further actions that will be taken with regard to his claim. Ordinarily two requests for records would be necessary. 2. If additional relevant records are obtained, ask the physician who provided the June 2012 examination to review that evidence and state whether it changes any aspect of the previously provided opinion. If the examiner is not available, another physician should review the new evidence and clarify whether it would change the previous opinions. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate in addition to that requested above, re-adjudicate the issues on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case. 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).