Citation Nr: 1319524 Decision Date: 06/17/13 Archive Date: 06/27/13 DOCKET NO. 07-33 730 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a cold injury of the right lower extremity. 2. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a cold injury of the left lower extremity. 3. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cognitive disorder, and depression. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Kristi L. Gunn, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1951 to March 1953. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from June 2006 and January 2011 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. In April 2012, the Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) during a travel board hearing at the local RO. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. In August 2012, the Board remanded the claims for additional development and adjudicative action. A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system does not reveal any additional documents pertinent to the present appeal. The issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cognitive disorder, and depression is addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. 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). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The competent and probative evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right lower extremity is manifested by arthralgia, numbness, cold sensitivity, nail abnormalities, color changes, and arthritis. 2. The competent and probative evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the left lower extremity is manifested by arthralgia, numbness, cold sensitivity, nail abnormalities, color changes, and arthritis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a cold injury of the right lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); Diagnostic Code (DC) 7122 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.104, DC 7122 (2012). 2. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a cold injury of the left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); Diagnostic Code (DC) 7122 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.104, DC 7122 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In this decision, the Board will discuss the relevant law it is required to apply. This includes statutes enacted by Congress and published in Title 38, United States Code ("38 U.S.C.A."); regulations promulgated by VA under the law and published in the Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("38 C.F.R."); and the precedential rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (as noted by citations to "Fed. Cir.") and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (as noted by citations to "Vet. App."). The Board is bound by statute to set forth specifically the issue under appellate consideration and its decision must also include separately stated findings of fact and conclusions of law on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record, and the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(d); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.7 (implementing the cited statute); Vargas-Gonzalez v. West, 12 Vet. App. 321, 328 (1999); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56-57 (1990) (Board's statement of reasons and bases for its findings and conclusions on all material facts and law presented on the record must be sufficient to enable the claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review of the decision by courts of competent appellate jurisdiction; the Board must also consider and discuss all applicable statutory and regulatory law, as well as the controlling decisions of the appellate courts). VA's Duty to Notify and Assist Review of the claims folder reveals compliance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et seq. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). The duty to notify was accomplished by way of the VCAA letter from the RO to the Veteran dated in January 2005. The letter effectively satisfied the notification requirements of the VCAA consistent with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) by: (1) informing him about the information and evidence not of record that was necessary to substantiate his increased rating claims; (2) informing him about the information and evidence the VA would seek to provide; and (3) informing him about the information and evidence he was expected to provide. See also Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004) (Pelegrini II); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). Although the January 2005 VCAA notice letter did not contain the information regarding the assignment of ratings and effective dates required by Dingess v. Nicholson, 483 F.3d 1311 (2007), a follow-up letter with the necessary information was sent to the Veteran in March 2006. With respect to the duty to assist, the RO has secured the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs), VA outpatient treatment records, as well as provided him with several VA medical examinations to rate the current severity of his service-connected residuals of a cold injury to the right and left lower extremities. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a); Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 182-83. The examinations were provided in January 2005 and March 2010. These examinations are adequate, and a new VA examination to rate the severity of his service-connected disabilities is not warranted. Additionally, the Veteran has not indicated that his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the bilateral lower extremities have worsened in severity. Finally, the Veteran has submitted personal statements and representative argument. The Board notes that the Veteran testified at an April 2012 travel Board hearing before a VLJ. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) (2012), it is the responsibility of the hearing officer to explain fully the issues and suggest the submission of evidence which the claimant may have overlooked and which would be of advantage to the claimant's position. In Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010), the Court held that the hearing officer has two distinct duties under section 3.103(c)(2). First, the hearing officer must explain fully the issues still outstanding that are relevant and material to substantiating the claim by explicitly identifying them for the claimant. Id. at 496 (finding that a hearing officer's inquiries regarding the existence of a current disability and a nexus to service did not equate to explaining to the claimant that these issues were material to substantiating the claim). Second, the hearing officer must suggest that a claimant submit evidence on an issue material to substantiating the claim when such evidence is missing from the record or when the testimony at the hearing raises an issue for which there is no evidence in the record. Id., at 496-97. The Court also observed that the rule of prejudicial error applies in assessing any deficiency with respect to the hearing officer's duties under section 3.103(c). See id. at 498. Citing Sanders, 556 U.S. at 407, 410, the Court noted that the rule of prejudicial error requires a case-by-case determination as to whether the error in question was harmless. Id. Thus, in Bryant, 23 Vet. App. at 498-99, the Court held that although the hearing officer did not explicitly explain the material issues of medical nexus and current disability, the "clarity and completeness of the hearing record was intact" and the purpose of section 3.103(c)(2) fulfilled because the record reflected that these issues were developed by VA, including the provision of a VA examination, and there was no indication that the appellant had any additional information to submit. At the hearing, the Veteran testified as to the current severity of his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the bilateral lower extremities. Any deficiencies in the April 2012 Board hearing under section 3.103(c)(2) were not prejudicial, and no deficiencies have been shown or alleged. Through the August 2012 remand and several notice letters, the Veteran has been advised of what evidence would substantiate his claims, and accorded opportunities to provide substantiating evidence. VA has otherwise developed the claims, including obtaining records on the Veteran's behalf and providing VA examinations which specifically address the outstanding issues in this case, as discussed above with regard to VA's duty to assist under the VCAA. Moreover, the Veteran did not raise any new issues relevant to his claims for increased ratings at the hearing, and there is also no indication of any outstanding evidence he might submit. See id. at 499. Thus, given the development undertaken by VA with respect to the claims, and in light of the Veteran's testimony at the hearing, the "clarity and completeness of the hearing record [is] intact" and the purpose of section 3.103(c)(2) to develop the record has been fulfilled. Id. at 498-99. Accordingly, the Veteran's right to a Board hearing has been satisfied and no prejudicial error exists with regard to the hearing officer's duties under section 3.103(c)(2). See id.; see also Sanders, 556 U.S. at 407, 410. The RO/AMC also substantially complied with the Board's August 2012 remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). See also D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (2008) (finding that only substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, with the terms of a Board engagement letter requesting a medical opinion is required). The RO/AMC referred the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities to the Director of Compensation Service for extraschedular consideration as requested. Thus, RO/AMC has substantially complied with the Board's instructions. In summary, the duty to assist has been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2011). The Merits of the Increased Rating Claims The Veteran contends that his residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities are more severe than is contemplated by the currently-assigned ratings, and asserts that higher ratings are warranted. The Veteran filed an increased rating claim in December 2004. The Veteran's entire history is reviewed when assigning a disability evaluation per 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. However, where service connection has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). The Court has held that in determining the present level of a disability for any increased evaluation claim, the Board must consider the application of staged ratings. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-510 (2007). That is to say, the Board must consider whether there have been times when his lumbar spine disability has been more severe than at others, and rate it accordingly. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. If there is a question as to which evaluation to apply to the Veteran's disability, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When reasonable doubt arises as to the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in the Veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Rating Schedule, but that findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the resulting disability and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. Therefore, the Board has considered the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of his disability in reaching its decision. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991). Competent medical evidence means evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also mean statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. It also includes statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of the facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). In essence, lay testimony is competent when it regards the readily observable features or symptoms of injury or illness. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities have been rated at 30 percent disabling each under 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7122 (2012). Under DC 7122, cold injury residuals are assigned a 10 percent rating for arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold sensitivity. A 20 percent rating is assigned for arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold sensitivity plus tissue loss, nail abnormalities, color changes, locally impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis, or X-ray abnormalities (osteoporosis, subarticular punched out lesions, or osteoarthritis). A maximum rating of 30 percent rating is assigned for arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold sensitivity plus two or more of the following: tissue loss, nail abnormalities, color changes, locally impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis, or X-ray abnormalities (osteoporosis, subarticular punched out lesions, or osteoarthritis). Note (1) to DC 7122 provides that amputations of fingers or toes are to be rated separately, and complications such as squamous cell carcinoma at the site of a cold injury scar or peripheral neuropathy are to be rated under other diagnostic codes. Other disabilities that have been diagnosed as the residual effects of cold injury, such as Raynaud's phenomenon, muscle atrophy, etc., are to be rated separately, unless they are used to support a rating under DC 7122. Note (2) to DC 7122 provides that each affected part (e.g. hand, foot, ear, nose) is to be separately rated and combined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.25, 4.26. The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran's claims file, including his VA treatment records, VA examination reports, and statements submitted in support of his claims. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, all of the extensive evidence of record. Indeed, it has been held that while the Board must review the entire record, it need not discuss each piece of evidence in rendering a decision. See Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gonzalez v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Board's analysis will focus specifically on the evidence that is needed to substantiate the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of his right and left lower extremities. Specifically, the Board will focus on the evidence of record that describes the severity of his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities. In January 2005, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities. The Veteran reported his feet bothering him more and more as he gets older, and in the last five years, they have worsened in severity. He indicated that his feet ache and hurt when walking long distances, and the pain is only alleviated by resting for approximately five or ten minutes, massaging his feet in the bath and shower, and applying moisturizing cream to help with the itching and dryness. The Veteran admitted to using a cane periodically for ambulatory purposes and that both lower extremities are bad equally. At night, the Veteran stated that the pain is a "burning" type along with some dysesthesias. Physical examination testing revealed a man with a steady gait with no corrective devices used. He was able to heel walk and toe walk with no difficulty. The VA examiner noted that his ambulation showed a moderate bunion on his right foot, and gross evaluation of the skin showed an atypical appearance of the skin with more of a glossy appearance. The feet were noted as being slightly sensitive on the plantar surface of his foot where he gets the deep aching from walking too much. The VA examiner noted that he had 2+ dorsalis pedis pulses with normal sensation. There was no abnormal weight bearing, functional limitations, pain on manipulation of the feet, or effects on usual occupation. Range of motion testing revealed ankle dorsiflexion to 15 degrees on both sides and 4 degrees of subtalar range of motion. The first metatarsalphalangeal (MTP) joints of both feet were not tender to palpation today, and there was no skin breakdown of both feet. X-ray testing revealed a moderate amount of arthritis in the first MTP joints of both feet with a moderate bunion deformity in the right first MTP joint. The VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with post frostbite to both feet with residual symptoms. In March 2010, the Veteran was afforded a second VA examination for his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities. The Veteran reported some pain in his feet when the weather changes, along with paresthesias in his toes and the plantar aspect of the feet. He denied the use of a cane or crutch for ambulatory purposes, but noticed the presence of some bunion deformities in the last two years. Upon physical examination testing of the right lower extremity, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran's gait was normal, though slow and deliberate without the use of a cane or crutch. Range of motion testing of the right ankle showed extension to 0 degrees, dorsiflexion to 10 degrees, and plantar flexion to 45 degrees. There was no palpable dorsalis pedis pulse, tibialis posterior pulse, or significant edema of the right foot or toes. The Veteran's active range of motion of the toes in flexion and extension were normal, and there was no sensory deficit. While the VA examiner noted a slight increased pigmentation of the skin circumferentially from the malleoli down to the toe tips, there was no hyperkeratosis of the skin, atrophic skin changes, or breakdowns in the skin. The Veteran also demonstrated normal sensation to light touch over all of the toes. Physical examination testing of the left lower extremity revealed no obvious abnormalities with the use of no assistive devices. He was able to walk on heels and toes without difficulty. The VA examiner noted the presence of bilateral bunion deformities. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed extension to 0 degrees, dorsiflexion to 10 degrees, and plantar flexion to 45 degrees. There was no noted pain with active range of motion testing of the foot, ankle, or toes, and the ranges of motion during passive, active, and three repetitive motions were the same. There was also no additional functional impairment due to pain, weakness, fatigability, incoordination, or flare-ups. There was no significant edema of the left foot or toes, no palpable dorsalis pedis pulse or posterior tibial pulse, no incapacitating episodes or radiation of pain, and no neurological findings that have affected his usual occupation or daily activities. The VA examiner noted the presence of hyperpigmentation of the skin in a circumferential fashion from the malleoli down to the toes with sensation to light touch over the toes. The VA examiner also reported no abnormalities of his upper extremities or any history of frostbite to the upper extremities. The Veteran was diagnosed with first-degree frostbite bilaterally of the lower extremities and normal upper extremities. VA outpatient treatment records reflect continuing complaints relating to his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities. In April 2006, at a VA podiatry assessment, the Veteran complained of burning pain on the bottom of each foot, with the left foot worse than the right. He admitted to having this burning pain since his military service in Korea. Upon physical observation, the VA physician noted that his pulses were palpable, and there was hypersensitivity along the plantar aspect of each foot with long toenails. He was assessed with onychomycosis and residual effects of frostbite. He was advised that he could be suffering from residual effects of frostbite, to continue to wear his orthotics, and to return in approximately three months. In June 2007, the Veteran returned to his local VA outpatient treatment facility for an additional podiatry assessment. He complained of long toenails. Observation of his feet revealed palpable pulses and grossly intact neurological senses. The VA physician observed long lytic and thick toenails, and he was assessed with onychomycosis. Debridement of nails was conducted, and the Veteran was requested to return in approximately four to five months. The Veteran returned to his local VA outpatient treatment facility in October 2007 with complaints of long toenails. Similarly, his pulses were palpable and he demonstrated grossly intact neurological senses. The Veteran was again diagnosed with onychomycosis and debridement of nails was conducted. In February 2008, the Veteran visited his local VA outpatient treatment facility with complaints of a rash on the right foot for approximately one week. Physical examination of the feet showed peeling of the skin noted on the dorsal right foot, along with some irritation. He was diagnosed with rule out tinea, dermatitis, and given a prescribed cream and ointment for the itching and irritation. The foregoing evidence shows that the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities have been manifested in each foot by multiple symptoms, including arthralgia, pain, numbness, cold sensitivity, nail abnormalities, color changes, and arthritis. As such, pursuant to DC 7122, disability ratings of 30 percent each for the right and left lower extremities are appropriate, and as noted above, represent the highest schedular rating that is available under DC 7122. Thus, ratings in excess of 30 percent for the service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities are not warranted. The notes following DC 7122 provide that other disabilities that have been diagnosed as the residual effects of cold injury, such as Raynaud's phenomenon, muscle atrophy, etc., should be separately evaluated unless they are used to support an evaluation under DC 7122. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7122 Note (1). In this case, at a May 2006 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, and the VA examiner concluded that the peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities was cold-related. As such, service connection is currently established for peripheral neuropathy of the right and left lower extremities. Note 2 of DC 7122 does not apply as well because the March 2010 VA examiner found no abnormalities associated with his upper extremities or any history of frostbite to the upper extremities. The Board has also considered whether referral for an extraschedular rating is appropriate. Ratings are generally based on average impairment, and that the rating schedule represents, as far as is practicable, the average impairment of earning capacity. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(a), (b) (2012). However, to afford justice in exceptional situations, an extraschedular rating can be provided. 38 C.F.R. § 3.3211 (b) (2012). In Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008), the Court clarified the analytical steps necessary to determine whether referral for extraschedular consideration is warranted. First, the RO or the Board must determine whether the evidence presents such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular evaluations for that service-connected disability are inadequate. Id. at 115-16. Second, if the schedular evaluation does not contemplate the Veteran's level of disability and symptomatology, and is therefore found to be inadequate, the RO or Board must determine whether the claimant's exceptional disability picture exhibits other related factors such as those provided by the regulation as 'governing norms. Id. Third, if the rating schedule is inadequate to evaluate a Veteran's disability picture and that picture has attendant thereto related factors such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, then the case must be referred to the Under Secretary for Benefits or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service to determine whether, to accord justice, the Veteran's disability picture requires the assignment of an extraschedular rating. Id. As directed by the August 2012 remand, this case was referred to the Director of the Compensation Service for consideration of extraschedular evaluations for the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities. In May 2013, the Director determined that upon review of the claims file, current medical records have not provided evidence that the Veteran has been hospitalized for any extended periods of time due to his bilateral lower extremity residuals of a cold injury, nor has he required any form of surgical intervention for the disabilities. The Director also noted that both VA examiners determined that while the Veteran would be functionally impaired occupationally where tasks included labor type work, the Veteran was not held with an inability to work due to his service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the bilateral lower extremities. Furthermore, the Director noted that the Veteran stopped working in 2001, and there is also no objective evidence from previous employers supporting any significant impact on his employment. The Director concluded that the totality of the evidence does not support the contention that the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities are so exceptional or unusual, as to render the use of the regular rating schedule standards impractical, and entitlement to extraschedular evaluations are denied. After thorough consideration of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against extraschedular evaluations for the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities. The Veteran's disability picture is not so unusual or exceptional in nature as to render the schedular rating inadequate for the reasons discussed above. Overall, the evidence does not support disability evaluations in excess of 30 percent disabling for both the service-connected residuals of a cold injury of the right and left lower extremities, and the claims for the benefits must be denied. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. ORDER Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a cold injury of the right lower extremity is denied. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a cold injury of the left lower extremity is denied. REMAND In September 2011, the Veteran submitted a timely substantive appeal to the Board via a VA Form 9, on which he indicated that he wanted a Board hearing at the local RO in regards to his claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. There is no indication that the Veteran has been scheduled for his requested Board hearing. Considerations of due process mandate that the Board may not proceed with review of the claim on appeal without affording the Veteran an opportunity to appear at the requested hearing. Therefore, a remand is required for the scheduling of a travel board hearing. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(b) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.700(a) (2012). In view of the foregoing, to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: (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.) Schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing at the RO in Chicago, Illinois. The Veteran and his representative should be notified of the date and time of the hearing. 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). ______________________________________________ F. JUDGE FLOWERS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs