Citation Nr: 21001459 Decision Date: 01/08/21 Archive Date: 01/08/21 DOCKET NO. 03-31 153 DATE: January 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to payment or reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses, incurred for medications purchased at not-VA pharmacies between August 6, 2013, and August 5, 2014. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Navyfrom March 1972 to May 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 administrative decision by the Salem, Virginia Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). In his April 2015 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing before a member of the Board. However, in a subsequent November 2015 statement, the Veteran requested that the scheduled hearing be cancelled and did not request that it be rescheduled. In April 2016, the Board remanded the matter for the file to be associated with the record. A June 2016 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) continued the denial of the benefit sought. Subsequently, the Veteran asked for a hearing concerning the appeal. However, in his most recent specific correspondence pertaining to the appeal, the Veteran cancelled his hearing request and requested the matter be adjudicated on the evidence of record. See May 2020 Correspondence. The Board finds that additional development is warranted before the Veteran’s claim on appeal can be decided. A review of the file suggests to the Board that the record, as it currently stands, is not complete, and that there may be outstanding evidence relevant to the claim. The Veteran seeks reimbursement for a variety of medications purchased from Walmart in October 2013 and November 2013. These include Crestor/rosuvastatin, clindamycin, miconazole nitrate cream, losartan, chlorhexidine solution, clotrimazole cream, and terbinafine cream. During the time he purchased these medications, the Veteran had apparently been authorized for non-VA treatment for a dermatological condition. See Authorization 28772-2. On appeal, the Veteran contends he had attempted to fill prescriptions at the VAMC in Durham, NC twice, and that he received a letter in response with the refusal. He contends in some pleadings to attach such with the pleadings, but review of the record does not show any letters from the pharmacy. It is unclear from the pleadings which prescriptions he attempted to fill and when, and whether the Veteran is referring only the prescriptions given to him by a pre-authorized appointment for dermatology. It is noted that when a veteran attends a pre-authorized appointment, VA is normally primarily responsible for fulfilling and supplying veterans with medications through a VA pharmacy; depending on the circumstances, reimbursement for filling such a prescription at an outside pharmacy may be warranted under certain circumstances. The record is inadequate to rule one way or another on this point. Remand for further development on this point is accordingly warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make requests from the Durham VAMC and the Veteran for copies of the letters from the Durham VAMC pharmacy denying any prescriptions for which reimbursement is sought currently (October and November 2013). Associate efforts to secure such with the record. 2. Then, after performing any other development warranted, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case, allow the appropriate time for response, and then return the case to the Board. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. C. King, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.