Citation Nr: 21014376
Decision Date: 03/12/21	Archive Date: 03/12/21

DOCKET NO. 12-11 541A
DATE: March 12, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to reimbursement for ambulance transportation expenses incurred on May 29, 2011 is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1956 to April 1958. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2011 decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). The appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c).  38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2).

In April 2014, the Veteran presented testimony at a Travel Board hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the hearing is associated with the Veteran’s file.

Entitlement to reimbursement for ambulance transportation expenses incurred on May 29, 2011 is remanded.

The Board remanded this matter for further development in March 2016.  In that remand, the Board directed that all VA treatment records from Bay Pines VAMC    from May 2011 to August 2011 be associated with the claims file, and that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) request a copy of the ambulance report from SunStar Medical Services for the date in question.  The record does not reflect that either of these actions were completed.  Remand is therefore needed to ensure compliance with the prior remand directives.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Associate all of the Veteran’s VA treatment records from Bay Pines VAMC dating from May 2011 to August 2011 with the electronic claims file.  Make as many requests as are necessary to obtain the records, and document all such requests and responses in the claims file.  

2.  Secure any necessary authorization from the Veteran and request a copy of the Veteran’s ambulance report  (not just the invoice) from SunStar Emergency Medical Services for his call and transportation on May 29, 2011.

3.  After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the AOJ should again review the record and readjudicate the claim.  If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case.

 

 

K. A. BANFIELD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Solomon, 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.