Citation Nr: 1320150	
Decision Date: 06/21/13    Archive Date: 07/02/13

DOCKET NO.  06-35 878	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Winston-Salem, North Carolina


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a mood disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected disability.


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Rebecca Feinberg, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active duty from December 1982 to December 1986.

This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2005 rating decision of the RO.  



In a September 2008 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's claim.  The Veteran then appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).

In a Memorandum Decision dated April 2010, the Court vacated the September 2008 decision and remanded the matter to the Board for further development consistent with the Memorandum Decision.

In February 2011, August 2011, and August 2012, the Board remanded this claim to the RO for additional action.

A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system reveals no additional documents pertinent to this claim.

The issues of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and service connection for eczema and dermatitis 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 and refers these matters to the AOJ for appropriate action. 

The appeal is being 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

As directed by the Board, the RO made a determination in the June 2011 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) that the Veteran had not been awarded service connection for eczema or dermatitis at the same time that he had been awarded service connection for PFB.

However, a review of the Veteran's written statements shows that he has raised the claim of service connection for eczema and/or dermatitis.  This claim has not been developed or adjudicated by the RO.  

Furthermore, given the Veteran's contentions and the evidence of record suggesting that his innocently acquired psychiatric disorder is secondary to eczema and dermatitis, the Board finds that adjudication of the claim of service connection for a mood disorder is inextricably intertwined with this matter.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action:

After completing all indicated development, the RO should adjudicate the claim of service connection for eczema and dermatitis in light of all the evidence of record.  Then, the RO should readjudicate the claim of service connection for a mood disorder on both direct and secondary bases, after effectuating the decision as to service connection for eczema and dermatitis.  If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO should furnish a fully responsive Supplemental Statement of the Case to the Veteran and his representative and they should be afforded a reasonable opportunity for response.

Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition.

The Veteran 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).



_________________________________________________
STEPHEN L. WILKINS
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).