Citation Nr: 1320185 Decision Date: 06/21/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 11-08 488 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Providence, Rhode Island THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder, to include arthritis, a circulatory disorder, and edema. 2. Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance or at the housebound rate. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD H.J. Baucom, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from April 1953 to March 1955. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from two rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Providence, Rhode Island. A September 2010 rating decision denied service connection for arthritis of the legs with edema and poor circulation. A July 2011 rating decision denied special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance or at the housebound rate. The Veteran's virtual VA file has been reviewed. In August 2012 the Board remanded the claim for further development, to include an examination. The issues of service connection for arthritis of the legs with edema and poor circulation has been recharacterized as entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder to include arthritis, a circulatory disorder, and edema in accordance with Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). 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 August 2012 Board remand ordered a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran's leg disorders and their relationship, if any, to his bilateral pes planus, as part of VA's duty to assist. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). A VA examination was scheduled for November 2012. The Veteran cancelled the appointment as he was unable to attend due to him being hospitalized and then in a physical rehabilitation facility. The Veteran has reported that he is now available for a VA examination. In the April 2013 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) the AMC found that good cause had been shown to miss the appointment and that the Veteran should contact them to schedule an examination when he is able to attend one. The Board agrees that good cause has been shown. In a May 2013 letter the Veteran reported that he was now out of the rehab facility and available for an examination and requested that one be scheduled. Therefore a remand to schedule another examination is necessary. Evaluation of the Veteran's claim for aid and attendance is based upon his service connected disabilities. As his claim for service connection for bilateral leg disorder, to include arthritis, a circulatory disorder, and edema is still pending, it would be prejudicial to the Veteran to adjudicate the claim for aid and attendance prior to the claim for service connection for bilateral leg disorder, to include arthritis, a circulatory disorder, and edema, therefore a remand of that issue is also necessary. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (two issues are "inextricably intertwined" when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision on one issue cannot be rendered until the other issue has been considered). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (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. Contact the Veteran and provide a 21-4142 authorization and consent for Dr. PE and request that they forward copies of all available clinical documentation pertaining to treatment of the Veteran, not already of record, for incorporation into the record. The Veteran himself should obtain these records and submit them to the VA to expedite the case. If identified records are not ultimately obtained, the Veteran should be notified pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e) (2011). 2. Obtain and associate with the claims file any and all recent treatment records from the VA Medical Center (since the last request), to include all identified facilities and clinics. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for compensation purposes to address the current nature and etiology of his leg disorders. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings then reported in detail. The examiner should advance an opinion as whether it as likely than not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that any identified leg disorder (if any) was caused or aggravated by the service connected bilateral pes planus with metatarsalgia. All relevant medical records, including the claims folders, should be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents therein. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. However, if the requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 4. After the requested examination has been completed, the examination report should be reviewed to ensure that it is in compliance with the directives of this remand. The report should be returned to the examiner if it is deficient in any manner. 5. Thereafter, ensure that the development above has been completed in accordance with the remand instructions and undertake any other development action that is deemed warranted. Then readjudicate the Veteran's claims. If the benefits sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his accredited representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant 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). _________________________________________________ JOHN C. CROWLEY 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).