Citation Nr: 1304958 Decision Date: 02/11/13 Archive Date: 02/21/13 DOCKET NO. 01-07 673A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 21, 2000, for the award of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine (accrued benefits). 2. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 21, 2000, for the award of service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness. 3. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 21, 2000, for the grant of a total rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) (accrued benefits). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Sean A. Ravin, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD H. Hoeft, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1966 to August 1968. The Veteran died in December 2008. The appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2004 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida, which granted: (1) service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine, and assigned a 40 percent evaluation, effective March 21, 2000; (2) service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness, and assigned a 20 percent evaluation, effective March 21, 2000; and (3) a TDIU rating, effective March 21, 2000. In a May 2006 decision, the Board granted an earlier effective date of January 21, 2000, for the award of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine, and denied effective dates earlier than March 21, 2000, for the award of service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness, and a TDIU. The Veteran perfected an appeal of the Board's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). By a November 2007 Order, the Court granted a November 2007 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacating the Board's May 2006 decision and remanding the case to the Board to action consistent with the parties' joint motion. The Board notes that the JMR only identified two of the three issues (i.e., the TDIU and right lower extremity issues) denied in the May 2006 Board decision; however, it appears that the parties also agreed that a remand was "necessary on the low back condition." It is unclear to the Board how earlier effective date claims for the award of service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness and TDIU can be logically adjudicated without consideration of an earlier low black disorder claim. Therefore, the Board finds that the May 2006 decision was vacated by the Court in its entirety. The Board remanded the appeal for additional development in April 2008 and most recently in November 2008. The Board is satisfied that there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives and the Board may proceed with review. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In February 2009, VA was informed that the Veteran had died in December 2008; the appellant has properly substituted herself for claims pending before the Board at the time of his death. Lastly, the Board notes that, in addition to the paper claims file, there is a Virtual VA paperless claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review of the documents in such file reveals that they are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims file or are irrelevant to the issues on appeal. The issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 21, 2000, for the grant of a TDIU (accrued benefits) is addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran died in December 2008. 2. At the time of his death, the Veteran had pending earlier effective date claims relating to the initial grants of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity weakness, as well as the initial grant of a TDIU rating. 3. The appellant is the surviving spouse of the Veteran; filed her request for substitution and accrued benefits within one year of his death. 4. Service connection for residuals of a fracture to the thoracic spine was granted in a December 1968 rating decision; the RO denied a subsequent request for an increase in October 1972, and the Board confirmed that denial in an October 1973 decision. All prior RO decisions were subsumed by the Board's October 1973 decision. 5. In April 1982, the RO granted an increased rating of 20 percent, and the Veteran appealed that determination to the Board; in a May 1983 decision, the Board denied an evaluation in excess thereof for residuals of a fracture of the thoracic vertebra with mild nerve involvement. All prior RO decisions were subsumed by the Board's May 1983 decision. 6. An unappealed March 1992 rating decision, denying higher evaluations for service-connected residuals of a thoracic spine fracture, is final. 7. An August 9, 1993, statement from the Veteran's representative is construed as an informal claim for VA compensation for service connection for residuals of the service-connected thoracic spine disability, to include associated lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity disabilities. 8. A May 1994 rating decision denied the Veteran's August 9, 1993, claim for a higher evaluation for his service-connected back disability; the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement in November 1994; however, no SOC was issued. As such, the May 1994 rating decision was not final. 9. Pending claims for VA compensation for either a lumbosacral spine disability, and/or a right lower extremity weakness disability, cannot be constructively or liberally construed from the Veteran's documented correspondence and statements associated with his claims folder any earlier than August 9, 1993. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an effective date of August 9, 1993, for an original award of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine, for accrued benefit purposes, have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400 (2012). 2. The criteria for an effective date of August 9, 1993, for an original award of service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness, for accrued benefit purposes, have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Notice and Assistance Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application for benefits and prior to an initial unfavorable decision on a claim by an agency of original jurisdiction, VA is required to notify the appellant of the information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate the claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The notice should also address the rating criteria or effective date provisions that are pertinent to the appellant's claim. Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Substantially compliant notice was sent in September 2009, August 2010, and December 2011 letters and the claim was readjudicated in subsequent statements of the case (SOC) and supplemental statements of the case (SSOC). Mayfield, 444 F.3d at 1333. Moreover, the record shows that the appellant was represented by a private attorney throughout the adjudication of the claims. Overton v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 427 (2006). VA has obtained service treatment records, assisted the appellant in obtaining evidence, obtained medical opinions as to the onset and severity of disabilities, and afforded the appellant the opportunity to give testimony before the Board. All known and available records relevant to the issues on appeal have been obtained and associated with the appellant's claims file; and the appellant has not contended otherwise. VA has substantially complied with the notice and assistance requirements and the appellant is not prejudiced by a decision on the claim at this time. Applicable Laws and Regulations The appellant contends, in essence, that effective dates earlier than January 21, 2000, for the award of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine (as associated with service-connected thoracic spine fracture residuals), and earlier than March 21, 2000, for the award of service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness (as associated with service-connected thoracic spine fracture residuals), are warranted. The appellant's claim regarding an effective dated earlier than March 21, 2000, for a TDIU rating is discussed in the REMAND portion below. The effective date for a grant of service connection is the day following the date of separation from active service or the date entitlement arose, if the claim is received within one year after separation from service. Otherwise, it is the date of receipt of claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a),(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b). The effective date of service connection based on a reopened claim is the date of receipt of the new claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(r). VA recognizes formal and informal claims. A formal claim is one that has been filed in the form prescribed by VA. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). An informal claim may be any communication or action, indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under VA law. Thomas v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 197 (2002). See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155(a). An informal claim must be written, see Rodriguez v. West, 189 F. 3d. 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and it must identify the benefit being sought. Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998). Although a claimant need not identify the benefit sought "with specificity," see Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 199-200 (1992), some intent on the part of the Veteran to seek benefits must be demonstrated. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998). See also Talbert v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 352, 356-7 (1995) (noting that while VA must interpret a claimant's submissions broadly, VA is not required to conjure up issues not raised by claimant). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized VA has a duty to fully and sympathetically develop a Veteran's claim to its optimum. Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This duty requires VA to "determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations," Roberson v. West, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and extends to giving a sympathetic reading to all pro se pleadings of record. Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Factual Background and Procedural History Historically, service treatment records show that the Veteran was involved in motor vehicle accident (MVA) in June 1967 and sustained a compression fracture of the T-12 (thoracic spine) vertebra. The Veteran was discharged from service in August 1968 and filed an application for VA compensation benefits in September 1968. Contemporaneous x-rays of the lumbar and thoracic portions of the spine confirmed considerable residual compression of T-12. See October 1968 VA Examination. Pursuant to a December 1968 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for residuals of a fracture of the thoracic spine (T-12). A 10 percent evaluation was assigned. In October 1972, the Veteran submitted a claim for an increased rating with respect to his service-connected back disability. In October 1972, the RO issued a rating decision denying the claim; the Veteran subsequently appealed this determination to the Board. In October 1973, the Board also denied the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for residuals of a fracture of the thoracic spine. In March 1978 and March 1981, the Veteran again submitted claims for an increased rating for his service-connected thoracic spine disability. However, rating decisions dated in April 1978 and July 1981, respectively, continued and confirmed the 10 percent evaluation. Of note, a March 1978 x-ray of the lumbar spine was unremarkable. In September 1981, the Veteran again attempted to "re-open" his claim for an increased evaluation; in November 1981, he submitted a private neurological examination which indicated a diagnosis of "post-traumatic back pain" with subjective changes of sensation in the right leg. X-rays of the lumbar and thoracic spine, as well as EMG studies were recommended at that time. See Dr. Vroom's November 1981 Evaluation. In an April 1982 rating decision, the RO granted a 20 percent evaluation for thoracic spine fracture residuals with decreased sensation of the lower right extremity. The Veteran timely appealed that determination to the Board. In a May 1983 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for residuals of a fracture to the thoracic spine, with limitation of motion and mild sciatic nerve involvement. See May 1983 Board Decision/Denial. Next, on October 30, 1991, the Veteran submitted a claim for service connection for a emphysema and a nervous disability; he also requested an increased rating for his service-connected back disability. In November 1991, the Veteran submitted private medical records from Dr. White, dated from September 1974 to October 1992, in support of his claim. In pertinent part, these consisted of the following: (1) an October 30, 1991, treatment report showing subjective complaints of low back pain; objective findings of multiple, sub-cutaneous nodules of the left perilumbar and upper sacrum regions, 10 percent limitation of flexion, prominence spinous process, T-12; and an assessment of "old back injury stable;"and (2) a December 5, 1988, treatment report showing complaints of low back pain and a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. In December 1991, the Veteran underwent a limited Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination; he reported constant back pain. In pertinent part, the VA examiner provided a diagnosis of post-traumatic arthritis, lower dorsal and lumbosacral spine. Contemporaneous x-rays of the lumbar and thoracic spine showed marked compression of T-12 vertebral body; central right convex scoliosis of the lumbar spine; some sclerosis of the left sacroiliac joint; and a diagnostic impression of probable traumatic compression of T-12. A January 1992 limited VA examination showed complaints of constant back pain in the area of his fractured thoracic vertebrae, as well as pain radiating down the back of both legs with some numbness and tingling; objectively, neurological testing was normal. The diagnostic impression was post-traumatic arthritis, lower dorsal and lumbosacral spine. In a March 1992 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for thoracic spine fracture residuals, as well as his claims for service connection for emphysema and a nervous disability. In April 1992, the Veteran submitted a statement/notice of disagreement specifically disagreeing with the March 1992 rating decision. Following the Veteran's April 1992 NOD, the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC) addressing the issue of a higher evaluation (in excess of 20 percent) for residuals of a thoracic spine fracture with decreased sensation to the right lower extremity. The SOC expressly notified the Veteran that he had 60 days to respond to the SOC; otherwise, it would be assumed that he did not intend to complete his appeal and the record would be closed. However, as discussed further below, Veteran did not file a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) and the March 1992 rating decision became final as of March 1993. Next, in a communication received on August 9, 1993, the Veteran's accredited representative submitted an "informal claim under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 with regard to a claim for service connected benefits, non-service connected benefits and/or an increased disability rating." Following the August 9, 1993, communication, the Veteran submitted additional private treatment records from Dr. White (some of which were duplicative of medical records already submitted by the Veteran November 1991, dated in 1988 and 1991). Non-duplicative records included the following: (1) a September 1992 private treatment record from Dr. White indicating complaints of mid-back pain, and a diagnosis of prominent dorsal spinous process at T-12 ,and degenerative disc disease at T-12; (2) December 1992 private treatment record from Dr. White indicating complaints of aggravation of low back pain, objective findings of perilumbar spasm, and a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease; (3) a June 1993 private treatment record from Dr. White reflecting a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; (4) an August 1993 private treatment record from Dr. White indicating complaints of back pain and a diagnosis of compression fracture, T-12, old, with resulting mild dorsal kyphosis, and loss of range of motion; and (5) an August 1993 private treatment record from Dr. White showing x-ray findings of "good disc space" and normal vertebrae in the lumbar spine. Along with these private treatment records, the Veteran submitted a request for service connection for a lung condition. This condition was subsequently denied in a December 1993 rating decision for lack of new and material evidence. In a February 1994 statement, the Veteran expressly disagreed with the December 1993 rating decision (denying a lung condition), and also requested for his "service-connected back condition to be re-evaluated." In an April 1994 VA bones/orthopedic examination, the Veteran complained of mid- and lower back pain, as well as intermittent pain and radiation into the lower extremities (more symptomatic on the right). The diagnostic impression was residuals of a back injury with fracture of T-12. A contemporaneous private neurological examination (from Dr. Shawbitz) revealed evidence of a non-neurologic weakness of the right leg, and low back syndrome with low back pain but with no clear evidence of radiculopathy. EMG studies were recommended. In a May 1994 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected thoracic spine disability. The Veteran submitted a statement in November 1994, the content of which raised the issue of an increased rating for the service-connected back disability. As discussed further below, the Board construed the November 1994 communication as a notice of disagreement with the May 1994 rating decision (see January 1997 Board decision). That is, in the Board's January 1997 decision (regarding new and material evidence for a claim of service connection for a lung condition), the Board noted that the Veteran had been denied an increased evaluation for his service-connected back disability in a May 1994 rating decision and that Veteran had subsequently submitted correspondence in November 1994 indicating his disagreement with the continuation of the 20 percent evaluation. The Board noted that an SOC had not yet been issued on the matter. In sum, the Board accepted the Veteran's November 1994 as a NOD to the May 1994 rating decision denying an increased rating for the back. The next pertinent communication in the claims file is a March 2000 request from the Veteran for re-evaluation of his "lower back condition." In October 2000, the RO issued a rating decision denying the Veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a thoracic spine fracture. The Veteran submitted an NOD in January 2001; the RO issued and SOC in August 2001; and the Veteran submitted a timely VA Form 9 (substantive appeal) in September 2001. A December 2002 Board decision denied an increased rating for fracture of the twelfth thoracic vertebra. For reasons not pertinent to the current claims, a joint motion to remand (JMR) was issued in April 2003. In a February 2004 private treatment note, Dr. Bash confirmed that the Veteran's service-connected thoracic back disability had caused the development of secondary osteophytes at the lumbar spine levels. In March 2004, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for the thoracic spine for further development. In an October 2004 VA examination report, the examiner opined that the Veteran's thoracolumbar spinal disease was due to the in-service thoracic spine injury (i.e., the service connected thoracic spine disability). In a November 2004 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine, effective March 21, 2000; entitlement to service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness, effective March 21, 2000; and entitlement to a TDIU rating, effective March 21, 2000. As discussed in the INTRODUCTION portion of this decision/remand, the Veteran appealed the effective dates assigned for the lumbosacral spine disability, right lower extremity disability, and the TDIU, and the current appeal ensued. In June 2005, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for further development; in a May 2006 decision, the Board denied earlier effective dates for the right lower extremity disability and TDIU, and granted an earlier effective date of January 21, 2000, for the lumbosacral spine disability. As previously noted, the Board's May 2006 decision was vacated pursuant to a November 2007 JMR. The remaining procedural history is detailed in the INTRODUCTION portion of this decision above. Analysis Based on the evidence outlined above, the Board finds that an earlier effective date of August 9, 1993, for the awards of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbar spine (associated with service-connected thoracic spine fracture residuals) and for moderate lower right extremity weakness (associated with service-connected thoracic spine fracture residuals), is warranted, and the appeal will be granted. Specifically, the Board construes the August 9, 1993, communication submitted by the Veteran's accredited representative, as a pending, informal claim for service connection for a lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity weakness disabilities. Although the claim was not plead with specificity, the RO, on its own action, issued a subsequent rating decision in May 1994 (less than one year later), denying a claim of entitlement to a higher evaluation for residuals of the service-connected thoracic spine fracture. As noted in the Board's January 1997 decision, the Veteran submitted a November 1994 statement (NOD) disagreeing with the May 1994 rating decision; however, an SOC was never issued. The Veteran's claim was eventually adjudicated in a November 2004 rating decision, at which time service connection for lumbosacral and right lower extremity disabilities, as associated with the service-connected thoracic spin disability, was granted. As such, the May 1994 rating decision is not final and the Board finds that there has been a pending, informal claim for VA compensation for lumbosacral spine and lower right extremity disabilities, associated with the service-connected thoracic spine disability, since August 9, 1993, which was eventually adjudicated on the merits and granted in a November 2004 rating decision. In so finding, the Board notes that the objective medical evidence of record as of that date supported the grant of service connection for such disabilities on a secondary/residual basis. As such, the appropriate effective date for the Veteran's current awards of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine and lower right extremity weakness is August 9, 1993. The appeal in this regard is thus granted. The Board has reviewed the documented correspondence and statements contained in the Veteran's claims file that is pertinent to the period prior to August 9, 1993, and concludes that it cannot constructively or liberally construe a pending unadjudicated claim for VA compensation for a lumbosacral spine disability or right lower extremity disability at any time prior to August 9, 1993. In this regard, as noted above, Board decisions dated in October 1973 and May 1983, denied the Veteran's claims for increased ratings with respect to the service-connected thoracic spine fracture residuals. RO decisions addressing claims for residuals of thoracic spine fracture prior to the Board's October 1973 and May 1983 decisions are subsumed in the Board decisions for purposes of the Veteran's earlier effective date claim; hence any assertions of error or otherwise regarding those earlier RO adjudications cannot serve as a basis for assignment of an earlier effective date for service connection for residuals of the thoracic spine fracture, precisely because of the undisturbed finality of the Board's October 1973 and May 1983 decisions. Indeed, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (2012), when a determination of the agency of original jurisdiction is affirmed by the Board, the determination is subsumed by the final appellate decision. The Veteran next submitted a claim for an increased rating for the back in October 1991; this claim was subsequently denied by the RO in a March 1992 rating decision. As noted above, the Veteran did not initiate a timely appeal of the March 1992 rating decision and it became final in March 1993. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a) (2012). He also did not, within the one year period for initiating an appeal submit any additional evidence, and neither was any additional evidence received pertaining to that issue within that one-year period, so as to be considered as having been filed in connection with that claim to allow for continuation or non-finality of that claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) (2012); Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2011).Jennings v. Mansfield, 509 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007); King v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 464, 466-67 (2010); Young v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 461, 466 (2009). In this regard, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted additional private medical evidence relating to the back/lower extremity in November 1993; however, this was well outside of the initial one-year period (i.e., March 1993) contemplated by 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). Thus, finality of that prior rating action in March 1992 is undisturbed under applicable law. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.302, 20.1103. Accordingly, an earlier effective date for service connection for lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity disabilities is not warranted on the basis of non-finality of that prior adjudication, as a matter of law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994); (where the law is dispositive, the claim should be denied due to a lack of legal merit). In sum, there are no other bases found in the record for the assignment of effective dates prior to August 9, 1993. Thus, the August 9, 1993, effective date for the grant of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity weakness for accrued benefits purposes is the earliest possible effective date that can be assigned in this case, and therefore, the appeal is granted to that extent. ORDER An effective date of August 9, 1993, for the award of service connection for osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine for accrued benefit purposes is allowed, subject to the regulations governing the award of monetary benefits An effective date of August 9, 1993, for the award of service connection for moderate right lower extremity weakness for accrued benefit purposes is allowed, subject to the regulations governing the award of monetary benefits REMAND The Appellant also seeks an effective date prior to March 21, 2000, for the grant of TDIU for accrued benefit purposes. As explained above, the Board has granted earlier effective date for service connection for lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity disabilities. The appropriate effective date for the TDIU rating is inextricably intertwined with the ratings assigned for the service-connected osteoarthritic changes of the lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity weakness disabilities, prior to January 21, 2000, and March 21, 2000, respectively. As such, the Board must remand the TDIU claim to the RO so that the RO may determine the appropriate rating for the lumbosacral and right lower extremity disabilities prior to January 21, 2000, and March 21, 2000, respectively, and then make a new determination as to the appropriate effective date to be awarded for TDIU. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (two issues are " inextricably intertwined " when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision on one issue cannot be rendered until the other issue has been considered) See also Meeks v. West, 12 Vet. App. 352 (1999) (holding that the percentage evaluation awarded in conjunction with the assignment of an initial rating is not controlled by the laws and regulations referable to the effective dates of service connection, but by the laws and regulations referable to the effective date of an increased rating). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Assign ratings for: (1) service-connected osteoarthritic changes to the lumbosacral spine, for the period of August 9, 1993, to January 21, 2000; and (2) service-connected right lower extremity weakness, for the period of August 9, 1993, to March 21, 2000. 2. Readjudicate the claim for an effective date prior to March 21, 2000, for the grant of TDIU, for accrued benefit purposes, taking into consideration the earlier effective date assigned for service connection for the lumbosacral spine and right lower extremity disabilities, and the ratings assigned for such. 3. Thereafter, the appellant and her representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the appropriate period of time to respond. 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). ______________________________________________ DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs