Citation Nr: 1320728 Decision Date: 06/27/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 09-48 477 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford, Connecticut THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of gall bladder removal, other than the already service-connected scar, residual of cholecystectomy. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Carsten, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1983 to June 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2008 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The appeal was certified to the Board by the RO in Hartford, Connecticut. In March 2010, an informal conference was held in lieu of a requested local Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing. A report of this conference is contained in the claims folder. The Board acknowledges that additional issues were perfected on appeal. In September 2010, the RO granted service connection for tinnitus. This was a full grant of the benefit sought and the appeal of this issue was resolved. The RO also increased the evaluation for rosacea/seborrheic dermatitis to 60 percent and the evaluation for right upper back scar to 10 percent. Thereafter, the Veteran indicated that he had received the rating decision and that this satisfied his appeal on the following issues: evaluations of rosacea/seborrheic dermatitis, right knee strain, right ankle strain, right upper back scar, and hypertension; and service connection for a right shoulder condition. Accordingly, these issues are considered withdrawn and no longer for consideration. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2012). The Virtual VA eFolder has been reviewed. 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 Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System (VACOLS) shows that a VA Form 9 was received on December 1, 2009 and that a videconference hearing was requested. The Board is unable to locate a Form 9 or equivalent statement that was received on this date. However, in a December 28, 2009 statement, the representative stated that the Veteran wished to change his choice of hearing from a travel board to videoconference. The October 2010 Statement of Accredited Representative in Appealed Case also notes that the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran was scheduled for a local RO hearing and that an informal conference was held. There is no indication though that the Veteran withdrew his request for a videoconference hearing. On review, a remand is necessary so that the requested videconference hearing may be scheduled. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a videoconference hearing at the appropriate RO. Provide him and his representative reasonable advance notice of the date, time, and location 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). _________________________________________________ H. N. SCHWARTZ 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).