Citation Nr: 1315453	
Decision Date: 05/10/13    Archive Date: 05/15/13

DOCKET NO.  09-41 160	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas



THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.

2.  Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU).  



REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Mac, Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1986 to March 1989 and from February 1991 to April 1992.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri, which denied the benefits sought on appeal.  The Veteran appealed that decision to the Board, and the case was referred to the Board for appellate review. 

A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system reveals documents that are either duplicative of the evidence of record or are not pertinent to the present appeal.  

In April 1992, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for a dental disorder, to include gum disease, which does not appear to have been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  In addition, his representative asserted in April 2013 that he filed implied claims in February 2009 for service connection for a right hip replacement and a neurological disorder of the lower extremities.  These claims have also not been adjudicated by the AOJ.  Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over these claims, and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action.  

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 was scheduled for a hearing at the RO in January 2011 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; however, he failed to report for the hearing.  In a written statement dated in January 2011, the Veteran requested that his Board hearing be rescheduled, as he was unable to attend because of exacerbating low back problems due to cold weather.  Thus, the Veteran has presented good cause for his failure to attend the January 2011 Board hearing and should be rescheduled for another hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d).  

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should take appropriate steps in order to schedule the Veteran for a Board hearing at the RO in accordance with his request.  The Veteran should be notified in writing of the date, time, and location of the hearing.  After the hearing is conducted, or if the Veteran withdraws the hearing request or fails to report for the scheduled hearing, the claims file should be returned to the Board in accordance with appellate procedures. 

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).



_________________________________________________
JESSICA J. WILLS
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).