Citation Nr: 18152598
Decision Date: 11/23/18	Archive Date: 11/23/18

DOCKET NO. 16-42 492
DATE:	November 23, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus to include as secondary to splenectomy is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability to include as secondary to splenectomy is remanded.
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a lumbar spine disability is remanded.
Entitlement to a compensable rating for hepatitis C is remanded.
Entitlement to a compensable rating for a left kidney disability is remanded.
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a splenectomy is remanded.
Entitlement to a compensable rating for a surgical scar to left leg and abdomen is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from February 1971 to February 1973. 
Here, further evidentiary development is necessary before a decision can be reached on the merits of the Veteran’s claim. The appellate process set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a) contemplates that all evidence will first be reviewed by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) so as not to deprive the claimant of an opportunity to prevail on his claims at that level. Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). When the AOJ receives pertinent evidence relevant to a claim properly before it that is not duplicative of evidence already discussed in the statement of the case (SOC) or in a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), it must prepare an SSOC addressing that evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (b)(1). Further, when evidence is received prior to the transfer of a case to the Board, an SSOC must be furnished to the Veteran as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 19.31, unless the additional evidence is duplicative or not relevant to an issue on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.37 (a). There is no legal authority for a claimant to waive, or the RO to suspend, this requirement. 
Here, after the issuance of the SSOCs in September 2016 and February 2017, and before the appeal was certified to the Board on April 14, 2017, the AOJ obtained evidence pertinent evidence in the form of extensive VA treatment records.  Because the new evidence was in part received prior to transfer, the AOJ must first review this evidence and prepare an SSOC considering this newly received VA-generated evidence. Thus, a remand is required so that an SSOC may be issued.
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
Re-adjudicate the issues on appeal, to include consideration of the additional evidence obtained since it last adjudicated this claim. Consideration must be given to all evidence received since the last SSOCs, in September 2016 and February 2017. If any decision remains adverse, an SSOC should be issued.
 
MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Dworkin, Associate Counsel