Citation Nr: 1319027 Decision Date: 06/11/13 Archive Date: 06/21/13 DOCKET NO. 09-43 410 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Des Moines, Iowa THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a back disability with right leg sciatica and numbness of the toes. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Amy B. Kretkowski, Esq. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Laura E. Collins, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from February 1956 to December 1957. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine with right leg sciatica and numbness of the toes. The RO reconsidered this decision in an October 2007 rating decision after receipt of additional evidence, and denied it again. The Veteran filed a timely appeal of the June 2007 decision. In hearings held at the RO, the Veteran testified before a Decision Review Officer in January 2010 and before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2012. Transcripts of the hearings are associated with the claims file. In August 2012, the Board remanded the case for additional development. It now returns for further appellate review. The Board also notes that, in addition to the paper claims file, there is a paperless, electronic claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review of the documents in such file reveals that they do not contain any additional evidence relevant to the issue on 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 Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran seeks service connection for back condition (diagnosed as DJD, lumbar scoliosis, DISH, and chronic lumbar strain) with right leg sciatica and numbness of the toes. For the reasons that follow, his claim must be remanded. In August 2012, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim with instructions to, inter alia, obtain relevant VA treatment records from the Iowa City VA Medical Center (VAMC) dated from March 2011 to the present. However, those records do not appear to have been requested or obtained. They are not associated with the paper claims file or the paperless, electronic file, and there is no statement in the record that they do not exist or are unavailable. Therefore, these must be sought. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Additionally, the Veteran has indicated several times that he was treated for his back at Mercy Hospital (or Mercy Medical Center) in Cedar Rapids in 1963 and 1971. There is some indication that the Veteran may believe that Mercy sent the RO all records from 1963 to the present. However, that facility submitted records from only 1972 forward. In a letter dated December 2008 the Veteran was asked to provide another release for these records, but no such release was received. The Veteran should be given another opportunity to confirm which "Mercy" facility treated him in 1963 and 1971, and to provide a release for those records. 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. Obtain relevant VA treatment records from the Iowa City VAMC and associated clinics dated from March 2011 to the present. If no relevant records exist, then the claims file should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified of such. 2. Ask the Veteran to confirm which "Mercy" facility treated his back in 1963 and 1971, and ask for the proper release for those records. If a release is received, attempt to obtain any identified outstanding records. If any requested records cannot be obtained, the Veteran should be notified of such. 3. The RO should then readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, then the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The Veteran 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 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). _________________________________________________ K. A. BANFIELD 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).