Citation Nr: 1323712 Decision Date: 07/25/13 Archive Date: 08/06/13 DOCKET NO. 10-41 584 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002) for a back disability as a result of treatment at the VA Medical Center in San Diego, California. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a stroke, paralysis of the left side of the body, and blurred vision (previously claimed as neurological problems) as a result of treatment at the VA Medical Center in San Diego, California. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. P. Simpson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1981 to November 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In the Veteran's VA Form 9, received in December 2010, when asked if she wanted a hearing before the Board, she checked all three boxes, which provide for no hearing, a hearing in Washington, D.C. and a hearing at the RO. In February 2013, the Board contacted the Veteran and asked her to clarify whether she wanted a hearing before the Board. She was informed that if she did not respond, the Board would conclude she did not want a hearing. The Veteran did not respond, and thus the Board finds there is no hearing request pending at this time. 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 alleges she was injured at the La Jolla/San Diego VA Medical Center (VAMC) between the years 1992 and 1995. See VA Form 119, Report of General Information, dated September 2009. When the RO requested the medical records from the San Diego VAMC, it asked for the records from January 1, 1992, to January 12, 1994. The Board finds that this was an insufficient request, as the request failed to include the treatment records through December 1995. There are VA treatment records from the San Diego VAMC dated in June 1994, October 1994, and November 1994 of record; however, there are no VA treatment records from that medical center from 1995. Before deciding the issue on appeal, the Board finds that an attempt to obtain records through December 1995 must be made. The Veteran is informed that she may want to provide VA with more detail as to what treatment she received that caused her back disability, to include the date of treatment and the facts surrounding the disability. She also may want to consider submitting evidence of a current back disability. As to the application to reopen the claim of entitlement to compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a stroke, paralysis of the left side of the body, and blurred vision (previously claimed as neurological problems) as a result of treatment at the VA Medical Center in San Diego, California, this claim was denied in a February 2010 administrative decision. See February 17, 2010, letter. In March 2010, the Veteran sent a letter to the Board. The RO construed this letter as a notice of disagreement in connection with the claim for compensation benefits for a back disability. (The March 2010 letter did not provide any specific issue or issues with which the Veteran disagreed.) In August 2010, the RO issued a statement of the case addressing only the back disability. However, the Veteran submitted a copy of the August 2010 statement of the case with handwritten comments on page 8 about how the left side of her body was damaged. These statements were submitted within one year of the February 2010 notice letter, and the Board finds the Veteran has submitted a timely notice of disagreement for the § 1151 claim involving paralysis of the left side of the body. Accordingly, a statement of the case must be issued on this claim. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) (where notice of disagreement has been filed and a statement of the case has not been issued, appropriate Board action is to remand for issuance of a statement of the case). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the VA treatment records from the VAMC in San Diego from January 1994 through December 1995. 2. The Veteran may want to provide VA with more detail as to what treatment she received that caused her the back disability, to include the date of treatment and the facts surrounding the disability. She also may want to consider submitting evidence of a current back disability. 3. The AMC/RO should send the Veteran a statement of the case on the issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a stroke, paralysis of the left side of the body, and blurred vision (previously claimed as neurological problems) as a result of treatment at the VA Medical Center in San Diego, California. This issue should not be certified to the Board unless the Veteran submits a sufficient substantive appeal in response to the statement of the case. 4. Undertake any other development action that is deemed warranted, and re-adjudicate the issue of entitlement to compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a back disability as a result of treatment at the VA Medical Center in San Diego, California. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and her representative, if any, should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant 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 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). ________________________________________ M. C. GRAHAM 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).