Citation Nr: 1323527	
Decision Date: 07/24/13    Archive Date: 08/01/13

DOCKET NO.  10-11 933	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disorder, to include as secondary to bilateral wrist disability.  


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	The American Legion


WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL

Veteran


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

G. Jivens-McRae, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1972 to December 1975.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2009 rating decision of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for bilateral elbow disorder.  

In March 2010, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  A transcript of that hearing is of record and associated with the claims folder.  

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 Veteran claism that service connection is warranted for bilateral elbow disorder based upon service incurrence.  He related that while in service, he fell out of a tree and fractured both of his wrists.  During that fall, he also jammed his arms injuring his elbows.  He stated that he did not receive treatment for his elbows, but he has had problems with them since that time.  In the alternative, he argues that his bilateral elbow disorder is aggravated by his service-connected bilateral wrist injuries.  

A review of service treatment records reveals that the Veteran received treatment for his right and left elbows in service, not in connection with his 1974 fall from a tree.  He was treated prior to that time.  He was seen with elbow complaints in August, October, and November 1973.  

In October 2008, the Veteran underwent VA examination of the elbows.  The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral elbow disorder could not likely be caused by his service-connected wrist injury.  The examiner discussed right elbow complaints of November 1973.  However, he did not address the Veteran's other inservice elbow complaints.  Moroever, he did not address whether it was at least as likely as not the bilateral elbow complaints on a 



Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1. 





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).



_________________________________________________

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).