Citation Nr: 1323915 Decision Date: 07/26/13 Archive Date: 08/06/13 DOCKET NO. 07-20 327 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a right and left ankle disorder, to include osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tahirih S. Samadani, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1979 to June 1983. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2006 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur (Atlanta) Georgia. The Veteran requested a Travel Board hearing in his substantive appeal, which was duly scheduled for December 2009. The Veteran withdrew the hearing request and instead submitted additional evidence with a waiver of RO consideration. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304. When this case was most recently before the Board in December 2012, it was remanded for further development. It is now before the Board for further appellate action. 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 In the December 2012 remand, the Board requested that the AMC contact the Veteran and ask the Veteran to submit treatment records, including records relating to treatment of the ankles or arthritis from Benjamin P. Williams, M.D., and records dated from October 2005 from J. L. Vivas, M.D. (Dr. V.) In January 2013, the Veteran submitted an Authorization and Consent to Release Information to the VA asking the VA obtain records for Dr. V. for the dates from December 1991 to the present for arthritis (osteoarthritis and rheumatoid). The AMC did not make any attempt to obtain these records from Dr. V. Only treatment records from December 1991 to June 2006 for Dr. V. are currently associated with the claims file. The case must be remanded to obtain these records. The United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims has stated that compliance by the Board or the RO is neither optional nor discretionary. Where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance, and a further remand of the case will be mandated. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). As such, a remand is required in this case. In addition, it is noted that the Veteran has submitted documents pertaining to state disability retirement benefits. As it appears that there are additional records relevant to the present claim, the Veteran should be asked to authorize the release of these records. Finally, it appears that there are relevant VA medical records that have not yet been associated with the Veteran's claims folder or electronic record. In this regard, the VA examiner in January 2013 indicated that she reviewed electronic medical records dated from October 5, 2010 through January 18, 2013. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain records from J. L. Vivas, M.D. dating from June 2006 to the present. See the Veteran's January 2013 VA Form 21-4142. Obtain a new Authorization and Consent to Release Information to the Department of Veterans Affairs from the Veteran if the current authorization has expired. Request that the Veteran authorize the release of records from Georgia concerning his disability retirement including any medical records associated therewith. If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named non-VA records the AMC is unable to secure same, the AMC must notify the Veteran and (a) identify the specific records the AMC is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that the AMC made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by the AMC with respect to the claim; and (d) inform the Veteran that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. The Veteran must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Obtain VA treatment records pertaining to the Veteran including those dating from October 5, 2010 through January 18, 2013. 3. Then, undertake any additional development that is deemed warranted and readjudicate the claim. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative and provide an appropriate period of time to which to respond before the case is returned to the Board. 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). _________________________________________________ S.S. Toth 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).