Citation Nr: 1323613	
Decision Date: 07/24/13    Archive Date: 08/01/13

DOCKET NO.  10-10 796	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a low back/thoracic spine disability.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. 

4.  Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU).


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. Finn, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active service from August 1966 to July 1968.  He then served in the Puerto Rico National Guard from October 1974 to April 1987, and had periods of active duty for training (ADT) during that time, including from January 1, 1983 to May 31, 1983.

The appeal was remanded in August 2011 for further development.

In June 2013, the Veteran submitted additional VA treatment records of his most recent operation on June 5, 2013 directly to the Board, along with a written statement waiving initial review of this evidence by the RO.

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 Veteran if further action is required.


REMAND

Unfortunately, another remand is required in this case.  Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration.

Review of the file reveals that the Veteran has been receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA).  (See April 2010 VA treatment record).  It is unclear from the record whether he is in receipt of SSI or SDI, but he reported that he last worked in May 2003 and had to leave his employment due to his disabilities.  (See May 2009 TDIU claim).  Therefore, his SSA records, including a copy of the decision awarding this entitlement, should be obtained on remand.  38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2).  See also Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (indicating VA need only obtain relevant SSA records, which, under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, are those relating to the injury for which the Veteran is seeking VA benefits and have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the claim).

The Veteran also seeks entitlement to TDIU.  As the claims for service connection could affect his claim for TDIU, the Board finds that the claims are inextricably intertwined and a Board decision at this time would be premature.  See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are "inextricably intertwined" when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated).

Also, the February 2013 SSOC references a February 28, 2013 supplemental medical opinion that was provided, but review of the claims file and Virtual VA records does not show a copy of this report.  Thus, this report should be added to the file on remand.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Associate with the claims file or scan into Virtual VA records a copy of the February 28, 2013 supplemental medical opinion that was provided. 

2.  Obtain the Veteran's SSA records, including a copy of the decision awarding him disability benefits, as well as the medical records considered and relied on in making the determination.

Since these records are in the custody of a Federal department or agency, the attempts to obtain them are governed by 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2).  So make as many attempts to obtain these records as are required by this VA regulation.  The Veteran also must be appropriately notified in the event these records cannot be obtained.  38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(1).

3.  Readjudicate the claims in light of the additional evidence obtained.  If the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send him and his representative a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and give them time to respond to it before returning the case to the Board for further appellate consideration.

The Veteran 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).



_________________________________________________
SARAH B. RICHMOND
Acting 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).