Citation Nr: 1306174 Decision Date: 02/22/13 Archive Date: 02/27/13 DOCKET NO. 10-38 071 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 2. Entitlement to a temporary total rating pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 for convalescence purposes following surgical treatment of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas D. Jones, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran, who is the appellant, served on active duty from November 2001 to June 2002, and from January 2005 to January 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2009 rating decision of the Cleveland, Ohio, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In January 2012, the Veteran testified via video conference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing is of 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 Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Review of the service treatment records indicate he reported numbness or tingling of the hands or feet on a March 2006 post-deployment medical history questionnaire. He has reported the onset of such symptoms during his period of active duty from January 2005 to January 2006. The Veteran is competent to report such observable symptomatology as numbness or tingling of the upper extremities. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (addressing lay evidence as potentially competent to support presence of disability even where not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence). Such reports are also consistent with his military occupational specialty (MOS) as an auto mechanic. More recent VA clinical records confirm a current diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board finds this evidence sufficient to trigger VA's obligation to afford the claimant a VA medical examination or opinion. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). According to the July 2010 statement of the case, the Veteran was scheduled for such an examination on November 16, 2009, and did not report for examination. Review of the record indicates that on that date, the Veteran underwent several VA examinations unrelated to the instant appeal. As the record does not reflect that the Veteran was in fact scheduled, or failed to report, for a neurological examination specific to his carpal tunnel syndrome claim, remand is required to afford him this necessary development. At the hearing, the Veteran indicated that he had received both private and VA treatment for the claimed carpel tunnel syndrome. VA treatment records have been associated with the file dated up to May 2010. It does not appear that private treatment records have been obtained. Updated treatment records should also be obtained. The Veteran is also provided notice that, where entitlement to a benefit cannot be established or confirmed without a current VA examination or re-examination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination, an original compensation claim shall be considered on the basis of the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). Thus, his cooperation with any further development is requested. Adjudication of the Veteran's temporary total rating claim must also be deferred, as this issue is inextricably-intertwined with his service connection claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which is being remanded herein. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify specific names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers who provided treatment for his claimed carpel tunnel syndrome. The RO should attempt to obtain any properly identified records. 2. The AMC/RO should obtain any VA treatment records dated from May 2010 to the present and associate them with the record. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA medical examination to determine the etiology of any current neurological disorder of the wrists and hands, claimed as bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Veteran's claims folder should be forwarded to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner must also solicit from the Veteran a full medical history as it pertains to his service connection claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. All pertinent symptomatology and findings should be reported in detail. After examination of the Veteran and review of the entire record, the examiner is requested to identify any current neurological disabilities of the upper extremities, and provide an opinion, with complete rationale, as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or higher) that any currently manifested neurological disorders first manifested in service or within a year thereafter, or are causally related to any incident of service. If the opinion cannot be provided without result to speculation, that should be so indicated. The medical rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. 4. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate, and giving the appellant full opportunity to supplement the record, adjudicate the Veteran's pending claims in light of any additional evidence added to the record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. 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). _________________________________________________ K. J. ALIBRANDO 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).