Citation Nr: 1306712 Decision Date: 02/27/13 Archive Date: 03/01/13 DOCKET NO. 13-00 005 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to special monthly death pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance or being housebound. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D.S. Lee, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1942 through February 1946 and from October 1950 through April 1967. The appellant is the Veteran's widowed spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which denied special monthly death benefits based on the need for regular aid and attendance or being housebound. A timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) was received from the appellant in February 2011. After a Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued to the appellant in October 2012, the appellant perfected her appeal in November 2012 via VA Form 9 substantive appeal. 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 Board finds that further development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the issues on appeal. In her February 2010 claim, the appellant asserted entitlement to compensation paid at "the housebound rate due to multiple medical conditions which include hypertension and congestive heart failure." In November 2010, the appellant was afforded a VA examination to explore her physical condition and determine whether the extent of her physical disability was such that it met the legal requirements for housebound status. Based upon the findings from the examination, the examiner concluded that the appellant was not homebound and was capable of protecting herself from the daily environment. In her November 2012 substantive appeal, the appellant reported that her physical condition had worsened since the February 2010 examination. In that regard, she stated that she was hospitalized on multiple occasions in September 2012 due to renal insufficiency and congestive heart failure. She alleged further that her daughter had recently moved in with her to assist her and to manage her medications. Although the appellant purported to attach a copy of the hospital discharge summary, presumably from her September 2012 hospitalizations, no such record is associated with the claims file. The treatment records in connection with the appellant's September 2012 hospitalizations are highly likely to be relevant to the question of whether the appellant is housebound, as defined under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.351 and 3.352. Nonetheless, VA has not made any efforts to locate and obtain those records. Such efforts must be undertaken. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Also, in order to insure that the most complete and up-to-date evidence has been associated with the claims file, the appellant should also be asked to identify any other private or VA medical providers who have provided her with medical treatment since her February 2010 VA examination. VA must then also make efforts to obtain the treatment records that are identified by the appellant. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 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. A letter should be sent to the appellant explaining, in terms of 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103 and 5103A, the need for additional evidence regarding her claim for special monthly death pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance or being housebound. This letter must inform the appellant about the information and evidence that is necessary to substantiate her claim, and also, must provide notification of both the type of evidence that VA will seek to obtain and the type of evidence that is expected to be furnished by the appellant. The letter must also notify the appellant that VA is undertaking efforts to obtain the hospitalization and treatment records which pertain to the September 2012 hospitalizations reported in her substantive appeal, and, records for any other treatment received by her since her February 2010 VA examination. The appellant should be provided a VA 21-4142 release form, and be requested to identify on the release the current name(s) and address(es) of the medical facilities where she was hospitalized in September 2012, and, for any other VA or private treatment providers who have provided her with medical treatment since February 2010. 2. Make efforts to obtain the hospital and treatment records for the appellant's September 2012 hospitalizations, and, for any other medical treatment identified by the appellant. Any records obtained as a result of such efforts should be associated with the claims file. If such efforts yield negative results, a notation to that effect should be inserted in the file. The appellant and her representative are to be notified of any unsuccessful efforts in order to allow the Veteran the opportunity to obtain and submit those records for VA review. 3. After completion of the above action and any other development deemed necessary, the RO/AMC is free to undertake any additional development, to include another VA examination if deemed necessary. Thereafter, the issue of the appellant's entitlement to special monthly death pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance or being housebound should be readjudicated. If the determination remains adverse to the appellant, she and her representative should be furnished with a SSOC and be given an opportunity 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). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL LANE 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).