Citation Nr: 1318443 Decision Date: 06/06/13 Archive Date: 06/11/13 DOCKET NO. 11-28 121 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected left shoulder disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Colorado Division of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Haddock, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1973 to August 1975 and from June 1977 to May 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision by the Denver, Colorado Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2013, the Veteran appeared and provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. The Board has not only reviewed the Veteran's physical claims file but also the Veteran's file on the "Virtual VA" system to insure a complete review of the evidence. The issues of entitlement to service connection for depression secondary to a service-connected left shoulder disability and entitlement to an increased rating for a service-connected left shoulder disability have been raised by the record, but have not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them and they are referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. 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 additional development is needed before the Veteran's claim on appeal is decided. The Veteran has claimed entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability as secondary to his service-connected left shoulder disability. Specifically, he has asserted that the limitations caused by his left shoulder disability resulted in his current right shoulder disability, degenerative joint disease (DJD). The Board notes that of record is a June 2010 VA examination report which contains a negative nexus opinion. However, the Board finds that the June 2010 VA examination was inadequate. Specifically, the examiner did not provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran's service-connected left shoulder disability has aggravated his current right shoulder disability. As the Veteran has claimed entitlement to secondary service connection for his right shoulder disability, such an opinion as to aggravation is necessary. Further, at his May 2013 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that since 2010 his left shoulder disability has continued to get worse, which has caused his right shoulder disability to increase in severity. He further testified that he had an upcoming medical appointment at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) to assess the current state of his right shoulder disability. A review of the physical claims file and "Virtual VA" file shows that the most recent treatment notes of record from the Denver VAMC are dated July 2012. The Board finds that current VAMC records, to include the records of the Veteran's recent appointment for his right shoulder, may contain information pertinent to the claim and must be associated with the claims file before a decision is rendered in this case. 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. The RO or AMC should obtain treatment records from the Denver, Colorado VA Medical Center, dated from July 2012 to the present, to specifically include the records of May 2013 medical appointment for his right shoulder disability. 2. Then, the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination by a medical professional with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's current right shoulder disability. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. After examination and review of the claims file the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right shoulder disability was caused or chronically worsened by his service-connected left shoulder disability. The complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. When the development requested has been completed, and the RO or the AMC has ensured compliance with the requested actions, this case should again be reviewed and readjudicated by the RO or the AMC on the basis of the additional evidence. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case, and be afforded a reasonable 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). _________________________________________________ MICHELLE L. KANE 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).