Citation Nr: 0004051 Decision Date: 02/16/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 91-50 873 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability on a secondary basis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disorder on a secondary basis. 3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of aortic and iliac aneurysms on a secondary basis. (The issues of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability and entitlement to an effective date for an award of service connection for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, prior to November 8, 1994 will be considered in a separate decision.) REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Peter J. Sebekos, Attorney WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Siegel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1946 to January 1947. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the Regional Office (RO). By rating action dated in May 1990, the RO denied the veteran's claim for service connection for right shoulder and right elbow disabilities. When these issues were before it in June 1993, the Board remanded them for additional development of the record. In a rating decision dated in January 1994, the RO continued the denial of service connection for right shoulder and elbow disabilities, and denied service connection for aorta and iliac aneurysms on a secondary basis. These issues were remanded by the Board in January 1995. By decision in April 1996, the Board, in pertinent part, denied service connection for right shoulder and right elbow disabilities, and for residuals of aortic and iliac aneurysms. The veteran appealed these matters to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (prior to March 1, 1999, it was known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals) (hereinafter, the Court). By decision in January 1998, the Court remanded these issues to the Board for appropriate development. Following the Court order, the Board, by decision in October 1998, again remanded these claims to the RO for development of the record. REMAND A review of the claims folder discloses that the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case which considered the matters now on appeal in March 1999. However, the supplemental statement of the case was only sent to the veteran's service organization representative. That organization is the veteran's representative with respect to other matters before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). There is no record that the supplemental statement of the case was ever sent to the veteran's attorney who is representing the veteran on the matters now before the Board. The statement of the case and/or a supplemental statement of the case must be furnished to the veteran's attorney. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.30, 19.31 (1999). The failure to do so must be rectified. To ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: The RO should issue a copy of the March 1999 supplemental statement of the case to the veteran's attorney, Peter J. Sebekos, Esq., who should be given a reasonable period of time to respond. Thereafter, the RO should review any additional evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may now be granted. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the Regional Office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), 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) (1999).