Citation Nr: 1306374	
Decision Date: 02/25/13    Archive Date: 03/01/13

DOCKET NO.  11-28 772	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas


THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Texas Veterans Commission


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

A.G. Alderman, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1957 to August 1959.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas.

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

Upon perfecting his appeal, the Veteran requested a Board hearing at a local VA office.  He subsequently asked that he be scheduled for a videoconference hearing instead of a live hearing at a local office.  The RO scheduled his videoconference hearing for Wednesday, January 9, 2013.  The day prior to his hearing, the Veteran submitted correspondence asking the RO to postpone his hearing and to reschedule it at the Big Spring VAMC.  He said he was unable to report to the Waco, Texas RO due to lack of transportation, financial difficulties, and unavailability of childcare.  

Under 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(c) (2012), requests for rescheduling a hearing may be made at any time up to two weeks prior to the scheduled date of the hearing if good cause is shown.  Such requests must be in writing, must explain why a new hearing date is necessary, and must be filed with the VA office of the official who signed the notice of the original hearing date.  Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, illness of the appellant and/or representative, difficulty in obtaining necessary records, and unavailability of a necessary witness.

Even though the Veteran's request to reschedule the Board videoconference hearing was made only one day prior to the scheduled January 9, 2013 hearing, the Board finds that the Veteran demonstrated good cause under 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(c), given his lack of transportation and financial difficulties.  Thus, to afford the Veteran an opportunity to testify at a Board hearing as requested, this case will be returned to the RO to reschedule the Veteran for a videoconference Board hearing.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (2012).  If possible, the RO should attempt to accommodate the Veteran's request to have the videoconference hearing held at the Big Spring VAMC.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should schedule the Veteran for a videoconference hearing in accordance with applicable procedures.  The Veteran and his representative should be provided with notice as to the time and place to report for the hearing.  

The Board notes for the RO's information that the Veteran has requested that he be scheduled for his videoconference hearing at the Big Spring VAMC instead of at the Waco RO.  The RO should attempt to accommodate the Veteran in this regard, if possible.  

The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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).


_________________________________________________
KATHLEEN K. GALLAGHER
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).