Citation Nr: 1304828 Decision Date: 02/11/13 Archive Date: 02/21/13 DOCKET NO. 10-13 082 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities, including as due to exposure to Agent Orange. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and his wife ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tiffany Berry, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to January 1971. He served in Vietnam. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is from August and September 2007 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Des Moines, Iowa. In May 2012, the Veteran and his wife testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. 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 Before addressing the Veteran's service connection claim on the merits, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence is required and, therefore, the case is remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction for the action discussed herein. The Veteran in this case submitted his application for the benefit at issue in 2006, and provided 2003 private records showing a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy. When the Veteran was examined for VA purposes in connection with the claim in 2007, however, nerve conduction studies and an EMG revealed no abnormalities, and none of the numerous VA treatment records dated thereafter appear to reflect the current presence of peripheral neuropathy. In 2011 and 2012 letters, the same private physician whose 2003 records were previously submitted, again wrote that the Veteran had peripheral neuropathy. He likewise expressed his view that the Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange was implicated in the development of this disease. Given the contradictory medical evidence in the claims file, a remand is necessary in order to afford the Veteran a VA examination to first confirm whether he currently has peripheral neuropathy and, if so, whether it is due to his military service, including to exposure to Agent Orange. Additionally, the most recent VA treatment records contained in the claims file are dated in November 2010. Any more current relevant records should be sought. Finally, it appears the Veteran has filed for Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits based on his peripheral neuropathy and service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Such records may be potentially relevant to the Board's determination and thus, VA is obliged to attempt to obtain and consider them. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(c)(3) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2012); see also Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (2011); Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given an opportunity to submit any treatment records or lay statements addressing the etiology of his bilateral neuropathy. He also should be asked to identify where he has received any treatment for peripheral neuropathy since 2010, the records of which should be sought. 2. Request, directly from the SSA, complete copies of any determination on a claim for disability benefits from that agency, together with the medical records that served as the basis for any such determination. 3. The Veteran should be scheduled for an appropriate VA examination in order to determine the nature and etiology of bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities. All indicated tests and studies should be undertaken. The claims file, should be made available for review of the Veteran's pertinent medical history. The examiner should determine if the Veteran is suffering from peripheral neuropathy in any extremity. Then, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran's military service, to include his presumed exposure to Agent Orange, or to some other cause. The rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. If it is not possible to provide the requested opinion without resort to speculation, the reasons for that should be explained. 4. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. The Veteran 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). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE 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).