Citation Nr: 1321996 Decision Date: 07/10/13 Archive Date: 07/18/13 DOCKET NO. 09-47 402 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left trochanteric bursitis with lumbosacral intervertebral disc syndrome. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Virginia Department of Veterans Services ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. B. Yantz, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active duty service from April 1972 to June 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2009 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A notice of disagreement was received in June 2009, a statement of the case was issued in October 2009, and a substantive appeal was received in November 2009. The Veteran was scheduled to present testimony at a Central Office hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in June 2013. However, the Veteran failed to report to the hearing. As the record does not contain further explanation as to why the Veteran failed to report to the hearing, or a request to reschedule the hearing, the Board deems the Veteran's request for such a hearing to be withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.702 (2012). The Board notes that it has reviewed both the Veteran's physical claims file and "Virtual VA" (VA's electronic data storage system) to ensure that the complete record is considered. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND In a May 2008 submission, the Veteran stated that he had been treated for the claimed condition at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Birmingham, Alabama from July 2002 to May 2008, and at the VAMC in Washington, DC from January 2008 to the present. The Board notes that the treatment records associated with the claims file from the Birmingham VAMC end in December 2007; therefore, records from that facility from December 2007 to May 2008 are not currently of record. Furthermore, the Board notes that the treatment records associated with the claims file from the Washington VAMC begin in April 2008; therefore, records from that facility from January 2008 to April 2008 are not currently of record. Pursuant to Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 510 (2007), VA must consider whether an increased rating is warranted in the one-year period prior to the date of the claim. The Veteran filed his current claim in April 2008. Any ongoing VA medical records are constructively of record and must be obtained. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). On remand, the RO/AMC must ensure that the aforementioned VA treatment records (as well as any additional ongoing records) are associated with either the physical claims file or the Veteran's file in Virtual VA. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO/AMC must make arrangements to obtain all outstanding (not already contained in the claims file) VA medical records of treatment the Veteran has received for his claimed disability since April 2007 (one year prior to the date of the current claim), including specifically the identified records dating from December 2007 to May 2008 from the Birmingham VAMC, and the identified records dating from January 2008 to April 2008 from the Washington VAMC, as well as any additional ongoing records from either facility. If any records requested are unavailable, the reason must be explained for the record. 2. After completion of the above, the RO/AMC should review the expanded record and readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the issue on appeal remains denied, the RO/AMC should furnish the Veteran with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and the case should be returned to the Board after the Veteran is afforded an opportunity to respond. The Veteran 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 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). _________________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY 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).