Citation Nr: 1323212	
Decision Date: 07/19/13    Archive Date: 07/24/13

DOCKET NO.  09-18 209	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Baltimore, Maryland


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to VA disability compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for additional right eye disability due to surgeries in January 2007 by VA to repair a traumatic right eye injury with traumatic cataract, traumatic rupture of the iris sphincter, traumatic dislocation of lens into the vitreous cavity, and vitreous prolapse.


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Taylor, Counsel





INTRODUCTION


The Veteran, who is the appellant, served on active duty from January 1981 to January 1987.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision in August 2008 of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In April 2012, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the hearing is in the Veteran's file. 

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC.  VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.


REMAND

In the remand in June 2012, the Board asked VA to obtain the consent forms for eye surgeries in 2007.  Although VA records were obtained, including consent forms, the forms related to medical treatment by VA in 2011 and in 2012.  

As VA will make as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal agency, and as it is not clear from the record whether the requested forms do not exist or further efforts to obtain the forms would be futile, further development under the duty to assist is needed. 









Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Obtain copies of the forms for informed consent from the Durham VAMC, pertaining to eye surgeries by VA in January 2007.  In October 2012, a VA ophthalmologist, Dr. Cowan, of the Washington VAMC, who had reviewed the Veteran's file, referred to informed consent in a "remote server" that was unavailable. 

If the consent forms do not exist or further attempts to obtain the forms would be futile, notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.3159(e).

2.  After the development has been completed, adjudicate the claim, considering the opinion of the VA ophthalmologist, Dr. Cowan, of the Washington VAMC, who had reviewed the Veteran's file in October 2012.  If the benefit sought is denied, furnish the Veteran a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board.

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).










The 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).



_________________________________________________
George E. Guido
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).