Citation Nr: 1305061 Decision Date: 02/12/13 Archive Date: 02/21/13 DOCKET NO. 09-08 357 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected disability, including coronary artery disease and diabetes. 2. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral vascular disease, to include as secondary to service-connected disability, including coronary artery disease and diabetes. 3. Entitlement to service connection for gout, to include as secondary to service-connected disability, including coronary artery disease and diabetes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Siobhan Brogdon, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1963 to November 1966. This appeal comes before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the VA Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana that, among other things, denied entitlement to service connection for heart disease, lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and gout, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II. The Veteran was afforded a hearing at the RO in August 2009. The transcript is of record. During the pendency of the appeal, service connection was granted for polyneuropathy of the right and left lower extremities by rating action dated in August 2010. Service connection was also granted for coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure, with a history of myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass grafting, by rating decision in June 2011. Finally, service connection was granted for erectile dysfunction associated with heart disease by rating determination in June 2012. These are considered full grants of those benefits sought on appeal and they are no longer for appellate consideration. Following review of the record, 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 Board initially notes that in a June 2012 rating decision VA denied entitlement to service connection for restless leg syndrome. The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement in a July 2012 VA Form 9. While VA issued a statement of the case on this matter in December 2012, the Veteran has yet to file the substantive appeal necessary to vest the Board with jurisdiction over that claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 2002). Hence, the Board has no authority to order the hearing before a visiting Veterans Law Judge that was requested in the July 2012 VA Form 9. If the Veteran does file a timely substantive appeal before June 18, 2013, the RO should schedule the Veteran for a travel board hearing. Turning then to the issues over which the Board may exercise jurisdiction the undersigned notes that the RO appears to have limited their consideration of the claims at issue to the theory of entitlement to service connection secondary to diabetes. VA is, however, required to consider a claim for service connection under any possible theory available under the law. Hence, in light of the June 2011 decision granting entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure and post operative residuals of a coronary artery bypass grafting, the RO must specifically consider the claims at issue on the basis of entitlement to service connection secondary to coronary artery disease. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify any evidence which would link his hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and/or gout to his service connected coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure and post operative residuals of a coronary artery bypass grafting. If the RO cannot locate any identified record, the RO must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them, and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. The RO must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The claimant must be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and/or gout. . After review of the entire claims folder and Virtual VA, the physician examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not, i.e., is there a 50/50 chance that any diagnosed hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and/or gout is caused or permanently aggravated by any service connected disorder to specifically include coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure and post operative residuals of a coronary artery bypass grafting. For the record, the appellant is also service connected, in pertinent part, for diabetes, bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, and thigh scars associated with residuals of coronary artery bypass grafting. The examiner must provide a comprehensive rationale for all conclusions reached. 3. The Veteran is to be notified that it is his responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2012). In the event that the Veteran does not report for the aforementioned examination, documentation should be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It should also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. 4. After the development requested has been completed, the RO should review the examination report to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this REMAND. The AMC/RO must ensure that the examining physician documented their consideration of Virtual VA. If any report is deficient in any manner, the RO must implement corrective procedures at once. 5. After ensuring that all required development is complete, the RO must readjudicate the claims. If any claim is denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case before returning the claim to the Board, if otherwise in order. 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). _________________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN 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).