Citation Nr: 0001485 Decision Date: 01/18/00 Archive Date: 01/27/00 DOCKET NO. 95-05 230 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for psychiatric disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Kenneth M. Carpenter, Attorney WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant, his spouse and H.D. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas H. O'Shay, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from August 29, 1973, to September 25, 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 1994 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. In January 1998, the Board issued a decision denying reopening of the claim for service connection for psychiatric disability. The veteran appealed this decision, and in January 1999 the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals before March 1, 1999, hereinafter Court) granted a joint motion to remand the case and vacated the Board's January 1998 decision. REMAND The Board initially notes that the veteran's representative has argued that an October 1973 claim by the veteran for service connection for psychiatric disability remained unadjudicated until October 1994. The Board points out, however, that an unappealed November 1989 rating decision denied the claim for service connection for psychiatric disability. The issue on appeal is therefore correctly listed on the title page of this action. Briefly, the Court vacated the Board's January 1998 decision and remanded the case for the Board to apply 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) in light of the decision in Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Review of the record reflects that the veteran's representative, in an October 1999 statement, referred to portions of a September 1997 statement by Bryan Nelson, M.D., in which Dr. Nelson purportedly concluded that the veteran had experienced severe anxiety problems in service. The Board notes that a copy of Dr. Nelson's September 1997 statement is not on file, and, under the circumstances, concludes that a copy of this statement should be obtained. See generally Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (1995). The Board additionally notes that the veteran, at a September 1976 psychiatric evaluation, reported receiving treatment at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1974. The record reflects that the veteran's Application for Medical Benefits at the Indianapolis, Indiana VAMC for the treatment of "nerves" was denied in June 1974. The record also shows that the RO attempted to obtain medical records for the veteran from that facility only for the period from 1976. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should attempt to obtain a copy of treatment records for the veteran from the Indianapolis, Indiana VAMC for the period from September 1973 to through October 1976. If the veteran or his representative identify any other pertinent VA records which have not already been obtained, the RO should attempt to obtain a copy of those records as well. 2. The RO should also contact the veteran, through his representative, and request that he provide a copy of the September 1997 statement by Dr. Nelson. 3. Thereafter, the RO should review the claims files and ensure that all development actions have been conducted and completed in full. Then, the RO should undertake any other indicated development and readjudicate the issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for psychiatric disability in light of relevant decisions, including Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 4. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded an appropriate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This case 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. SHANE A. DURKIN 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).