Citation Nr: 1306516 Decision Date: 02/26/13 Archive Date: 03/01/13 DOCKET NO. 11-20 568 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for residuals of cardiac catheterization at a VA medical facility on March 17, 1987 (claimed as amputation of right first toe, right calf ulcers, skin grafts, scars, leg pain, poor circulation and blood flow, and limitation of motion of the right leg and ankle). ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. P. Jones, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1955 to December 1958 and from January 1959 to October 1959. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2008 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. A review of the Veteran's virtual VA folder reveals that all documents in that folder have already been considered by the RO in adjudicating the Veteran's claim. In March 2012 the RO wrote to the Veteran and informed him that he could not be represented by the attorney he had selected because that attorney was not accredited to represent claimants in claims before the VA. The letter informed the Veteran that he could seek other representation or he could proceed without representation until the attorney is accredited. The record indicates that the Veteran does not currently have representation. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). 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 asserts that he experiences various disabilities as a result of negligent VA surgical treatment performed on March 17, 1987. The record contains statements from a private physician dated in March 2003 and December 2003 in support of the Veteran's claim. The Veteran was provided a VA medical examination in October 2007 and the VA examiner provided an opinion that does not support the Veteran's claim. In September 2010, VA treatment records from March 1987, not previously of record, were associated with the Veteran's claims file. The Board notes that a new VA medical opinion should be obtained which considers the additional pertinent VA medical records. The Board also notes that the actual operative reports from the Veteran's March 17, 1987 cardiac catheterization and subsequent surgical repair of a right iliac arterial injury have not been obtained. The record indicates that the Veteran was discharged from the VA hospital on March 20, 1987, and the VA hospital discharge summary is also not of record. Another attempt should be made to obtain these documents. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Request the Veteran's March 17, 1987 cardiac catheterization records, surgical report of the right iliac artery repair, and March 20, 1987 VA hospital discharge summary. If these records cannot be obtained, a formal finding of unavailability should be issued and notify the Veteran of the efforts to locate these records. 2. When the above action has been accomplished forward the Veteran's claims file to a cardiac specialist for review. The examiner should provide an opinion as to the whether the Veteran has any current disability resulting from the March 17, 1987 VA medical treatment. The examiner is asked to specifically state whether the Veteran has had amputation of right first toe, right calf ulcers, skin grafts, scars, leg pain, poor circulation and blood flow, or limitation of motion of the right leg and ankle due to the March 17, 1987 VA medical treatment. If any current disability can be related to the March 17, 1987 VA medical treatment the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any such disability is due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or a similar instance of fault on the part of the March 17, 1987 VA medical treatment; or was an additional disability that was not reasonably foreseeable. 3. Finally, readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the RO should furnish the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and he should be provided an opportunity to respond in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. The case should be then returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. The appellant 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 A. PAPPAS 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).