Citation Nr: 1323268 Decision Date: 07/22/13 Archive Date: 08/01/13 DOCKET NO. 11-12 806 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, to include as due to exposure to herbicides. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. M. Kreitlow INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from June 1969 to June 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. Approximately one week later in the same month, the RO in Wichita, Kansas, notified the Veteran of that determination. Due to the location of the Veteran's residence, the jurisdiction of his appeal remains with the RO in Wichita, Kansas. 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 Unfortunately remand of the Veteran's claim is needed for additional development as set forth below. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's claims file is a rebuilt file. The first document of record relating to the present claim is the September 2010 rating decision. That decision lists the evidence that was before the RO at the time the rating decision was issued. Unfortunately, the Board finds that not all effort has been exhausted to rebuild the claims file and obtain all the evidence of record at the time of the September 2010 rating decision so that the Board can conduct a de novo review. Such efforts should be undertaken as set forth below in the instructions section of this remand. The medical opinion provided by the Veteran's private treating physician in statements dated in October 2010 and April 2011 does not include any rationale to support the opinion that the Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange predisposed him to developing chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. That opinion is, however, sufficient to raise VA's duty to assist in obtaining an adequate medical examination and opinion. Therefore, on remand, a VA neurology examination conducted by a neurologist with an appropriate medical opinion should be obtained. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and advise him that his claims file was misplaced and that VA is attempting to rebuild it. Ask him to provide the following documents that were previously of record if he has them available to him. If he does not have them, the Veteran should be asked to identify any known sources that may have them. a. A copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge. b. A copy of his service treatment records for the period of May 1969 to June 1971. c. A copy of his original claim for service connection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. d. A copy of the letter the RO sent him on May 8, 2010, explaining VA's Duty to Assist and requesting evidence or sources of evidence to support his claim. e. A copy of the VCAA notice response dated May 24, 2010, which he submitted to the RO. f. A copy of VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, dated May 24, 2010 he previously submitted. g. Copies of the miscellaneous medical evidence he previously submitted to the RO dated from January 2004 to January 2010. h. A copy of the article from WebMD on chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CDIP) he previously submitted. 2. Contact the Social Security Administration and ask it to provide a copy of the Veteran's medical and adjudication records relating to his claim for disability benefits. 3. After completion of the foregoing, to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for a VA neurology examination. Such examination should be conducted by a neurologist unless one is not reasonably available. The claims file should be forwarded to the examiner. After reviewing the claims file and examining the Veteran, the examiner should render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability) that the Veteran's current chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is related to any injury, disease or event incurred during service. The examiner should specifically address whether the chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy is etiologically related to exposure to herbicides during service. The examiner should be advised that the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides based on his service in the Republic of Vietnam from October 1970 to June 1971. The examiner should provide a complete explanation of the reasons for his opinion citing to appropriate medical authority; however, he should be advised that an opinion based solely on the fact that VA has not recognized chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy as a disease related to herbicide exposure is not adequate. The examiner should also be asked to address the private medical opinions submitted by the Veteran that are favorable to his claim. If the examiner determines that he/she cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain the inability to provide an opinion, identifying precisely what facts could not be determined. In particular, he/she should comment on whether an opinion could not be provided because the limits of medical knowledge have been exhausted or whether additional testing or information could be obtained that would lead to a conclusive opinion. Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 389 (2010). (The agency of original jurisdiction should ensure that any additional evidentiary development suggested by the examiner be undertaken so that a definite opinion can be obtained.) 4. After ensuring that all efforts have been undertaken to rebuild the claims file and obtain any evidence previously of record or that the Veteran has further identified, his claim should be readjudicated. If such action does not resolve the claim, a Supplemental Statement of the Case should be issued to the Veteran and his representative. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, this claim should be returned to this Board for further appellate review, if in order. 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 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. _________________________________________________ M. E. LARKIN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252, only a decision of the Board 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).