Citation Nr: 1328457 Decision Date: 09/06/13 Archive Date: 09/16/13 DOCKET NO. 07-30 992 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left hand "bilateral" median nerve focal neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome) for the period prior to June 30, 2009. 4. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for left hand "bilateral" median nerve focal neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome) for the period from June 30, 2009. 5. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right hand median nerve focal neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Puerto Rico Public Advocate for Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Jackson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from November 1963 to November 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2006 rating decision issued by the RO. In October 2010, the RO increased the ratings for the Veteran's left hand median nerve focal neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome) to 30 percent, effective June 30, 2009 (date of the VA examination). With regard to the left hand median nerve focal neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome), the issues on the title page reflect the higher ratings assigned for various stages of the appeal period. Finally, the Board notes that the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement with a March 2010 rating decision in which pertinent part the RO denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus and declined to reopen claims for service connection for a back disorder and an acquired psychiatric disorder. A Statement of the Case regarding these claims was issued in May 2011; however, the Veteran has not filed a Substantive Appeal. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.202, 20.302. Accordingly, those issues are not before the Board on 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 The RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) on May 3, 2011 regarding the issues currently on appeal. Subsequently, the RO received additional evidence, including a May 4, 2011 VA diabetes examination report addressing the neuropathy disabilities of the upper and lower extremities. The Board has reviewed the examination report and finds that it is of such significance that it would need to be considered in the disposition of the Veteran's claims for increased ratings. It is incumbent upon the agency of original jurisdiction, here the RO, to issue a SSOC following its receipt of new and pertinent evidence; however, the RO never issued an SSOC addressing this pertinent evidence. The absence of an SSOC constitutes a procedural error requiring a remand to the RO. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.9, 19.31, 19.37 (2012). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should consider preparing a rating decision that correctly identifies the service-connected neuropathies. The terms "bilateral left hand", "bilateral left lower extremity" and "bilateral right lower extremity" appears to be medically incorrect. Since the extremities are separately rated, the term bilateral may no long be appropriate. 2. After consideration of all the evidence added to the claim file since the May 3, 2011 SSOC, the Veteran's claims for entitlement to increased ratings for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, left hand bilateral median nerve focal neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome) and right hand bilateral median nerve focal neuropathy (carpal tunnel syndrome) should be readjudicated. Thereafter, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a SSOC, and should be given an opportunity to respond. Then, as indicated, this case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. 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). _________________________________________________ H. N. SCHWARTZ 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).