Citation Nr: 0002921 Decision Date: 02/04/00 Archive Date: 02/10/00 DOCKET NO. 99-06 545 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a disability of the left knee. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been presented or secured to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a disability of the right hip. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Pennsylvania Department of Military Affairs Bureau for Veterans Affairs and Assistance WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD William L. Pine, Counsel REMAND The appellant had active service from April 1971 to January 1972. In a VA examination of March 1987 and in a hearing before the undersigned in September 1999, the appellant stated that he had received VA and private treatment for his left knee. He has reported treatment at Lebanon VA Medical Center (VAMC) from some time after service until 1976, and that he was treated for arthritis at the Allentown VA Satellite Outpatient Clinic (VASOC) in the early 1980. Such medical records are not in the claims folder. VA has constructive notice of them, and they are constructively of record for the purpose of adjudication of disability claims. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Consequently, development for such records precedes any determination on well groundedness of a claim. The appellant has also reported private treatment records which may well ground his claim. Once VA is on notice of the existence of such records, it has a duty to inform a claimant for VA benefits that his application for benefits is incomplete, and of the evidence he must submit to complete the application. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 1999). That duty applies to both initial applications for service connection for a certain disability, Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (1995), and to attempts to reopen a previously disallowed claim. Graves v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 522, 525 (1996). The appellant told the March 1987 VA examiner and testified in September 1999 about treatment for arthritis or stress fractures of the knees and hips at Valley Forge General Hospital in Phoenixville during or prior to 1976. At the hearing he testified he had been treated by his family doctor for arthritis.. The RO obtained service medical records in December 1986. These were apparently from the appellant's health records file. They show he was hospitalized at Walson Army Hospital, Fort Dix, New Jersey. In his September 1999 testimony, the appellant reported he was hospitalized for six months in a body cast for fractures of multiple joints. VA has not specifically requested the appellant's clinical records from Walson Army Hospital. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following: 1. Obtain Walson Army Hospital clinical (inpatient) records from April 1971 to January 1972, including, if normal channels are unproductive, directly from that facility. If the records are not available, request documentation of the period of hospitalization and request an explicit statement that records are unavailable. 2. Obtain VA inpatient and outpatient medical records from Lebanon VAMC from January 1972 through 1976 and outpatient records from Allentown VA SOC from 1980 through 1985. 3. Inform the appellant that his application for service connection for left knee and right hip disabilities is incomplete. Inform him that to complete it he should submit medical records relating to diagnosis or treatment of his left knee and his right hip from Valley Forge General Hospital, and from the private physician to whom he referred in his September 1999 videoconference hearing. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The appellant need take no further action until he is notified. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to afford due process. No inference should be drawn from this remand regarding the final disposition of the claim. 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. GEORGE R. SENYK 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).