Citation Nr: 1329558 Decision Date: 09/16/13 Archive Date: 09/20/13 DOCKET NO. 11-02 626 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a nose disorder, claimed as nose bleeds. 5. Entitlement to service connection for dizziness. 6. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, claimed as damaged vision and eye pain. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Van Wambeke, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1951 to August 1951. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. The Veteran requested a Board hearing, which was scheduled for videoconference in November 2012. Prior to his hearing date, the Veteran indicated his desire to cancel his hearing and for his claims to be decided on the evidence of record. See November 2012 VA Form 21-4138. The Board will proceed accordingly. The Board notes that the Veteran filed a claim for temporary blindness in March 1984, which was denied in a September 1984 rating decision that he appealed to the Board. The Board denied the claim in September 1985. The Board finds that the present claim for damaged vision and eye pain is distinct from the claim for temporary blindness and will adjudicate it de novo. See Ephraim v. Brown, 82 F.3d 399, 402 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The issue of entitlement to service connection for headaches appears to have been raised by the record, but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). 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 seeks service connection for disorders of his knees, feet, ankles, nose and eyes, as well as for dizziness. The essence of his claims is that he was exposed to some type of gas during basic training, which caused loss of vision, eye pain, nose bleed and dizziness, and that the long hikes during basic training caused problems with his feet, ankles and knees, to include swelling and giving way. The Veteran also asserts that his loss of vision and dizziness caused him to fall and injure his knees and ankles and caused his nose to bleed. He asserts that he sought treatment during service due to his vision problems, that he was not fit for duty, and that at the time of his discharge, he had poor vision, nose bleed, problems with balance, and swollen knees, feet and ankles but was afraid to tell the examining doctor. The Veteran also asserts that he has had problems with his eyes since 1951 and that he still experiences nose bleeds. The Veteran's service treatment records were lost in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center. Daily sick reports are of record and reveal that he was seen on two occasions in May 1951, six occasions in June 1951, and three occasions in July 1951. There is no indication for what condition or conditions he received treatment. On one visit in June 1951 and on one visit in July 1951, the condition treated was noted to have occurred in the line of duty. All other visits indicate that the treated condition or conditions did not exist prior to service ("no EPTS"). An August 1951 separation examination is also of record. No significant abnormalities (N.S.A.) were reported in relation to the Veteran's eyes, to include color vision and opthalmoscopic. Distant vision was 20/40 in the right eye and 20/50 in the left eye, and near vision was J1 in both eyes corrected to J1. There were also no significant abnormalities in the spine and extremities, to include bones, joints, muscles, feet and gait. The Veteran was found qualified for separation. See report of medical examination. Post-service medical evidence of record, which includes treatment records from the VA Medical Center in Phoenix, private treatment records, and a September 1984 VA examination report, reveal that the Veteran has been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (specifically affecting his ankles, knees and feet), conjunctivitis and questionable nyctalopia, and ocular hypertension. The Veteran did not report any in-service problems at the time he received any of this post-service treatment, to include at the time of his September 1984 VA examination. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4), a medical examination will be provided or a medical opinion obtained if review of the evidence of record reveals that an examination or opinion is necessary for a decision to be rendered. See also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Given the assertions raised by the Veteran, and in light of the fact that service treatment records are not available but daily sick reports indicate that he received treatment on several occasions for unknown problems, the Board finds that the claims should be remanded in order to schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination. Complete service personnel records should also be obtained. The record also indicates that the Veteran was awarded disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in May 1982. The medical and legal documents pertaining to the Veteran's application for SSA benefits have not been associated with the claims folder. The possibility that SSA records could contain evidence relevant to the claims cannot be foreclosed absent a review of those records. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 188 (2002). On remand, efforts should be made to obtain these records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2013). The Veteran is hereby notified that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the case, and that the consequences of failing to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158 and 3.655 (2013). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Obtain the Veteran's complete service personnel records. 2. Request all medical and legal documents pertaining to the Veteran's application(s) for SSA disability benefits. If no records can be found, indicate whether the records do not exist and whether further efforts to obtain the records would be futile. 3. When the foregoing development has been completed, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination. The claims folders and any pertinent evidence in Virtual VA that is not contained in the claims folders must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. A detailed history should be obtained from the Veteran. The examiner is to identify any current disorder manifested by dizziness and all current disorders of the knees, feet, ankles, nose and eyes. The examiner is to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (that is, a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current disorder manifested by dizziness and any current disorder of the knees, feet, ankles, nose and/or eyes had its onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include the Veteran's report of exposure to gas and long hikes during basic training in 1951. His assertion of eye problems and nose bleeds since 1951 must be considered. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationale for all opinions and conclusions reached. 4. Review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. 5. Finally, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and provide an appropriate period of time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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 or by the U.S. 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). _________________________________________________ KATHLEEN K. GALLAGHER 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).