Citation Nr: 1319437 Decision Date: 06/14/13 Archive Date: 06/21/13 DOCKET NO. 10-12 580 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right hip injury. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left hip injury. 3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury. 4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left leg injury. 5. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of cold injury to both feet. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. M. Celli, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. In his March 2010 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a Board hearing. The record reflects that the RO notified the Veteran that a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge had been scheduled in October 2012. However, the Veteran did not appear for the Board hearing, and the notification letter was not returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. As neither the Veteran nor his representative have requested to reschedule the hearing, the request for a hearing is considered withdrawn pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.702(d) (2012). In August 2008, the Veteran submitted a claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disability. As this issue has not been adjudicated by the RO, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is referred to the RO for appropriate action. 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 Veteran if further action is required on his part. REMAND In February 2013, the Board remanded the Veteran's claims for additional development. In particular, the Board requested that the RO schedule the Veteran for VA examination of both hips, both feet, the left knee, and the left leg. The record reflects that the VA Medical Center in Shreveport, Louisiana notified the Veteran of the examinations scheduled for April 16, 2013. However, the Veteran did not report for the examinations, and the AMC issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case in April 2013 noting the Veteran had not reported for the examinations. The claims were then returned to the Board for appellate review. In a May 2013 written brief, the Veteran's representative asserted that for reasons beyond the Veteran's control, he was unable to report for the scheduled VA examinations. In light of this, the representative requested that the examinations be rescheduled. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, upon remand, the Veteran should again be scheduled for the referred examinations and provided adequate notice of the time and place of the examinations. The Veteran should also be notified that the purpose of the examinations is to obtain information or evidence which may be dispositive of the appeal. The Veteran must be notified that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (2012), failure to cooperate by attending a requested VA examination may result in an adverse determination. See Connolly v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 566, 569 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: (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. Schedule the Veteran for examinations of both hips, both feet, the left knee, and the left leg by a suitably qualified health care professional. The claims files and any pertinent records from the Veteran's Virtual VA file should be made available to the examiner for review. Any medically indicated tests should be accomplished. The examiner is asked to review the claims files, note that review in the report, elicit from the Veteran a history of relevant symptoms, and offer a diagnosis, if forthcoming. The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to report that he was wounded during combat and is also competent to describe the nature of the wounds and the treatment he received. For each diagnosis offered, the examiner should address whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater possibility) that the diagnosis is related to active military service. The physician should offer a rationale for each conclusion in a legible report. If any opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and then provide a reason for why the requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 2. After the development requested has been completed to the extent possible, the AMC/RO should re-adjudicate the service connection claims. If any of the benefits sought are not granted to the fullest extent, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given an opportunity to respond thereto. Then, return the record to the Board for further appellate review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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). _________________________________________________ G. A. WASIK Acting 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).