Citation Nr: 1321215 Decision Date: 07/02/13 Archive Date: 07/12/13 DOCKET NO. 11-14 138 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Chapman, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from June 1978 to May 1981. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2010 rating decision of the New York, New York Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The appeal is being 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 In a claim of service connection, records pertaining to the initial postservice treatment of the disability for which service connection is sought are pertinent (and may be critical) evidence, which must (if available) be secured. When the Veteran filed his claim seeking service connection for hypertension, he was asked by the RO to identify all providers of treatment he has received for hypertension; to provide authorization for VA to secure private records of such treatment; and to submit any records in his own possession. VA records, beginning in 2001, note the Veteran's history of hypertension. The earliest private treatment records he has submitted (beginning in 2004) note an impression of hypertension under treatment. While he has indicated that he has no additional evidence to submit, given that the earliest records received show he was already under treatment (with medication) for the hypertension it is obvious that pertinent records (including those showing when hypertension was first diagnosed and treatment) remain outstanding. The Veteran is advised that a governing regulation provides that where evidence requested in connection with a claim for VA benefits is not received within a year of the request, the claim will (emphasis added) be considered abandoned. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a). He is further advised that while under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(i), VA will make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency, ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that any private records are received. See also Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should ask the Veteran to identify all provider(s) of any (and all) treatment or evaluation he has received for hypertension since his discharge from active duty service in 1981. In particular, he must identify, and provide releases for records from, the provider of the evaluation when the initial postservice diagnosis of hypertension was made, and all providers who have treated him since. 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 reminded that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure such records are received. If the Veteran does not respond to the request for identifying information and releases for records sought, the claim should be further processed under 3.158(a) [after the Veteran has been afforded the full period of time provided under regulation]. 2. If the records sought are received and indicate or suggest that the Veteran's hypertension was diagnosed at a time proximate to service, the RO should arrange for a VA nexus examination for hypertension. If such examination takes place, the examiner should review the entire record (including this remand). Based on a review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's hypertension, and specifically, whether it is related to an event, injury, or disease in service. The examiner should respond to the following: Based on the factual evidence of record, what is the most likely etiology for the Veteran's hypertension? Specifically, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that it was incurred in? Please identify when, based on the factual evidence of record, hypertension was first manifested. If it is determined to not be related to the Veteran's service, please identify the etiological factors considered more likely. 3. The RO should then review the record and readjudicate the claim (under 3.158(a), if it applies). If it remains denied (or is dismissed as abandoned under 3.158(a)), the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford the Veteran 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. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ 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).