Citation Nr: 1322305 Decision Date: 07/11/13 Archive Date: 07/18/13 DOCKET NO. 08-17 936 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left knee disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left knee disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Bruce, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1959 to February 1979. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2006 rating decision of the Houston RO. In July 2012, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned; a transcript of this hearing is associated with the claims file. The appeal was remanded in September 2012. A review of the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system does not reveal any additional documents pertinent to the present appeal. 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 September 2012 Board remand requested that the Veteran be afforded VA examinations. The Veteran was afforded these examinations in October 2012. However, additional service treatment records were obtained after the examinations and therefore addendum opinions considering these additional documents are necessary. The newly-obtained service treatment records include a copy of the Veteran's January 1959 entrance examination and an undated document reported to be page two of the Veteran's separation examination. According to a December 2012 Formal Finding, NPRC provided the entrance examination and page two of the separation examination was provided by the RO from a temporary file. Page two was noted in an email exchange to have been provided by the Veteran. Page one of the separation examination was not provided, but the document provided is believed to be the second page of the Veteran's separation examination report. The October 2012 VA examiners were unable to review the newly-obtained service treatment records before providing their opinions. Although the RO requested addenda with consideration of the new records, the addenda are not of record. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the Veteran's entire claims file to the VA physician who conducted the October 2012 VA orthopedic examination for a low back disability and a right knee disability (or a suitable substitute if that VA physician is unavailable). The VA physician must review all pertinent evidence of record, specifically the January 1959 entrance examination and page two of the Veteran's separation examination. If after review of the additional documents the previous opinions are determined to be incorrect, then the examiner must provide new opinions. If the newly obtained documents do not change the previously provided opinions, the examiner should acknowledge that the additional records were reviewed and confirm the previous opinions. 2. Return the Veteran's entire claims file to the VA audiologist who conducted the October 2012 VA audio examination for bilateral hearing loss (or a suitable substitute if that VA physician is unavailable). The VA physician must review all pertinent evidence of record, specifically the January 1959 entrance examination and page two of the Veteran's separation examination. If after review of the additional documents the previous opinion is determined to be incorrect, then the examiner must provide a new opinion. If the newly obtained documents do not change the previously provided opinion, the examiner should acknowledge that the additional records were reviewed and confirm the previous opinion. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the AMC/RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development has been conducted and completed in full. In particular, the AMC/RO should determine whether the examiner has reviewed the newly obtained service treatment records. If not, the report must be returned for corrective action. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2012). 4. Thereafter, the issues of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, a low back disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left knee disability, and a right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left knee disability should be readjudicated. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the Veteran should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded the appropriate time period within which to respond thereto. 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). _________________________________________________ Vito A. Clementi 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).