Citation Nr: 18157247
Decision Date: 12/12/18	Archive Date: 12/12/18

DOCKET NO. 12-22 409
DATE:	December 12, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, to include as due to exposure to Agent Orange, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for heart problems, to include coronary artery disease, to include as due to exposure to Agent Orange, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to exposure to Agent Orange, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for multi-infarct dementia, to include as secondary to heart disability, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a stroke, to include as secondary to heart disability, is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia, to include as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from October 1972 to November 1979.  
These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio.  
On the Veteran’s August 2012 VA Form 9, he requested a hearing before a member of the Board.  However, in a March 2018 correspondence, the Veteran, through his representative, withdrew his hearing request.  Therefore, the Board finds that there is no hearing request pending.  
The most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) was issued in May 2017. However, after the SSOC was issued, the Veteran submitted relevant private treatment records and a deposition transcript, without a waiver of RO consideration. No subsequent SSOC has been issued. 38 U.S.C. § 7105, subsection e provides, “ If either at the time or after the agency of original jurisdiction [AOJ] receives a substantive appeal, the claimant or the claimant’s representative, if any, submits evidence to either the agency of original jurisdiction of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for consideration in connection with the issue or issues with which disagreement had been expressed, such evidence shall be subject to initial review by the Board unless the claimant or claimant’s representative, as the case may be, requests in writing that the agency of original jurisdiction initial review such evidence.” This provision; however, only applies to substantive appeals (VA Form 9s) submitted after February 2, 2013. The Veteran’s VA Form 9 was submitted in August 2012 and therefore the Veteran is entitled to an initial review by the AOJ. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31 (b)(1). Therefore, the Board finds that on remand, that the AOJ issue a SSOC after review of any evidence associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims folder since the May 2017 SSOC.
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
The AOJ should readjudicate the Veteran’s claims and issue a supplemental statement of the case which takes into consideration the evidence associated with the electronic claims folder (including private medical records and a 2015 deposition transcript) and provide the Veteran and his representative the requisite period of time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order.
 
MICHAEL A PAPPAS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	L. Baskerville