Citation Nr: 1329358 Decision Date: 09/12/13 Archive Date: 09/20/13 DOCKET NO. 07-35 786 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Memphis, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Methodist North Surgery Center on August 7, 2006 for service-connected left foot hallux valgus. (The issues of entitlement to service connection for right foot hallux valgus, to include as secondary to service- connected left foot hallux valgus, entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability, entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hallux valgus, left foot, and entitlement to vocational rehabilitation training benefits under the provisions of Chapter 31 of Title 38 of the United States Code, are the subjects of separate decisions of the Board). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Michael Viterna, Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. A. Rein, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from April 1982 to November 1986. Thereafter, he served in the Naval Reserves until 1996. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (MC) in Memphis, Tennessee. In February 2009, the Board remanded this matter for additional actions. The appeal is REMANDED to the Department of Veterans Affairs VAMC in Memphis, Tennessee. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The evidence associated with the claims file shows that in February 2007, the Veteran submitted a claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Methodist North Surgery Center on August 7, 2006 for service-connected left foot hallux valgus. In a June 2007 notice letter, the Veteran was advised that his claim for reimbursement was referred to the Memphis VAMC. In correspondence received from the Veteran in July 2007, he indicated that he contacted the RO as to the status of his claim, and was told to contact the Memphis VAMC. He stated that he was told by a representative at the Memphis VAMC that he was not entitled to reimbursement. However, after careful scrutiny of the multiple volumes associated with this case, the Board unfortunately has not been able to locate the decision issued by the Memphis VAMC as well as the statement of the case and any additional related documentation as to the issue of reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Methodist North Surgery Center on August 7, 2006 for service-connected left foot hallux valgus that is on appeal. The Board has no choice but to remand this issue to the Memphis VAMC to obtain all outstanding records pertaining to the Veteran's claim, to include the actual decision, statement of the case, the Veteran's notice of disagreement and substantive appeal, and any records considered in the decision, as well as any VCAA notice provided to the Veteran consistent with the Board's February 2009 remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Memphis VAMC is requested to obtain and associate all records not associated with the claims file, to include the actual decision that denied reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Methodist North Surgery Center on August 7, 2006 for service-connected left foot hallux valgus, the statement of the case, the Veteran's notice of disagreement and substantive appeal, and any medical records considered in the underlying decision. 2. Ensure that the Veteran has been provided with VCAA compliant notice that informed the Veteran of evidence needed to substantiate his claim on appeal and that all development actions necessary are undertaken. 3. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case 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). _________________________________________________ F. JUDGE FLOWERS 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).