Citation Nr: 1320469 Decision Date: 06/25/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 07-06 212 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability (to include chronic rash, hives and urticaria). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Curameng, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from October 1974 to August 1977. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2005 rating decision of the New Orleans, Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's claims file is now in the jurisdiction of the Waco, Texas RO. In November 2010 and November 2012, the case was remanded for additional development. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action on his part is required. REMAND While the notice provisions of the VCAA appear to be satisfied, a review of the record found that further development is necessary to comply with VA's duty to assist the Veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In November 2012, the Board noted that the February 2011 VA examiner cited to Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) records viewed electronically (which are not associated with the claims file or in Virtual VA) and directed that the records be associated with either the claims file or the Virtual VA record. The CPRS records remain outstanding. A January 2013 VA examiner also cited to CPRS records (specifically a June 24, 1998 treatment report) and an April 3, 2002 record from Good Shepherd Hospital, which likewise remain outstanding. The November 2012 Board remand also directed the RO to ask the Veteran to identify all providers of his treatment for skin disability and authorizations for VA to secure records of any private treatment; the Board specifically noted that a May 2001 treatment record from Nghia Truong, M.D. shows that the Veteran had seen an allergist and a dermatologist (who were not identified). A June 2001 record from Dr. Truong shows that the Veteran was to schedule an appointment with a Dr. Gross on July 30, 2001 and one with the [VA] dermatology department for evaluation on a different date. Finally, an August 2003 VA treatment record shows that an allergist determined that the Veteran had a food allergy (causing skin eruptions). In response, the Veteran submitted completed VA Forms 21-4142 (Authorization and Consent to Release Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)) for other facilities--VA Medical Centers (in Tucson, Arizona; Biloxi, Mississippi; Shreveport, Louisiana), Good Shepherd Medical Center, and Saint Elizabeth Covington. He did not provide releases for the providers specifically noted in the Board's remand. The RO did not follow-up (advising the Veteran that his response was incomplete, and asking him to submit releases for the private providers specifically identified). A compact disc containing some treatment records from Good Shepherd Medical Center was received by the Board in May 2013. It was viewed and the pagination on the records reflects that some pages of the 568 pages stated to be encompassed are missing. A review of the Veteran's Virtual VA file found that 568 pages of non VA treatment records were received in April 2013; however, all pages are blank. The complete records should be obtained and associated with either the Veteran's claims file or his Virtual VA file. As for VA records, treatment records from the Tucson VAMC remain outstanding. Additionally, some treatment records from the Biloxi VAMC are also outstanding. As he indicated in VA Form 21-4142, the Veteran has received treatment at Biloxi for hives and rashes since 1997. Only 1998 to 2006 Biloxi treatment records are associated with the record. The Veteran also indicated (in a separate VA Form 21-4142) that he was seen at the Shreveport.VA MC for rashes since 1984 A review of his claims file and Virtual VA file found treatment records from 1987, May 1993 to April 1998 and July 2002 to November 2012. Also, a January 2007 VA examination report (found in Virtual VA) notes that in 1982 the Veteran sought VA treatment for skin rashes that began to spread to his hands, and was later seen by a dermatologist and allergist. He did not identify the VA facility which provided the treatment. Since VA records are constructively of record, and may be pertinent, they must be secured. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The Veteran is advised that a governing regulation provides that when evidence or information (to include releases for pertinent private treatment records) sought in connection with a claim for VA benefits is not received with a year of the request, the claim is to be considered abandoned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should secure for the record copies of the complete CPRS records cited by the February 2011 and January 2013 VA examiners (and any updated such records). 2. The RO should ask the Veteran to identify all providers of evaluation and/or treatment he has received for his skin disability since service and to provide the authorizations necessary for VA to obtain records of all such private treatment. Specifically included must be records of: the treatment he received from the allergist and dermatologist noted, but not identified, in the May 2001 record from Dr. Truong. the report of his visit with Dr. Gross on July 30, 2001; the report of any VA dermatology appointment scheduled (per the notation in the June 2001 treatment record from Dr. Truong); and the records from the allergist mentioned in an August 2003 VA treatment record. The RO should obtain complete clinical records of all such treatment and evaluations from the identified sources. If any private provider does not respond to the RO's request for records identified, the Veteran should be so advised, and advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that such records are received. The RO should also specifically secure for the record copies of the complete clinical records (those not already in the record) of all evaluations and treatment the Veteran received for hives and rashes from VA since 1982, including treatment records from VAMCs in Tucson (from 1998 to the present), Biloxi (from 1997 to 1998 and since 2004) and Shreveport (from 1984 to 1987, May 1998 to June 2002, and since December 2012). 3. The RO should then review the record, arrange for any further development suggested by the records received, and readjudicate the claim. If it remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, for further review. The appellant 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 for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. _________________________________________________ George R. Senyk 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).