Citation Nr: 0003412 Decision Date: 02/10/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 96-12 715 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for sinusitis, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. M. Barnard, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from October 1944 to May 1946. This appeal arose from a July 1995 rating decision of the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), which granted service connection for sinusitis, assigning it a 10 percent disability evaluation. In July 1998, this issue was remanded to the RO for additional evidentiary development. In March 1999, the case was again remanded in order to comply with due process requirements. As previously noted, this case was remanded in July 1998 so that a VA examination could be performed. An examination was scheduled at the San Juan, Puerto Rico VA Medical Center, to which the veteran failed to report. The RO then learned that he had moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; thus, on December 2, 1998, the RO wrote to the veteran at his Philadelphia address, requesting that he clarify whether he was willing to report to a VA examination in Philadelphia. He was also asked to indicate if he wanted his case transferred to the Philadelphia RO. March 1999 correspondence from the veteran, he indicated that he wanted his case transferred to the Philadelphia RO. However, he made no mention as to his willingness to report for an examination. The San Juan RO then scheduled the veteran for an examination at the San Juan VA Medical Center in August 1999. Obviously, he failed to report. Under the circumstances of this case, it is found that additional assistance would be helpful, and this case will be REMANDED to the RO for following: 1. The San Juan, Puerto Rico RO should transfer the veteran's case to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania RO, as per the veteran's March 1999 request. 2. Once the transfer of the veteran's claims folder has been accomplished, the Philadelphia RO should afford the veteran a complete VA ear, nose and throat examination by a qualified physician in order to fully assess the current nature and degree of severity of the veteran's service-connected sinusitis. Specifically, the examiner should indicate whether the veteran suffers from three or more incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis requiring prolonged (lasting four to six weeks) antibiotic treatment, or more than six incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis characterized by headaches, pain, and purulent discharge. All indicated special studies deemed necessary must be accomplished. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner prior to the examination so that the veteran's entire medical history can be taken into consideration, and the examiner is asked to indicate in the examination report that the claims file has been reviewed. 2. A copy of the letter scheduling the veteran's VA examination should be made part of the claims folder. This letter must inform the veteran of the importance of reporting to his VA examination and the consequences of failing to do so (that is, the denial of his claim). 3. Once the examination has been completed and the report associated with the claims folder, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service- connected sinusitis, keeping in mind the holdings of Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308 (1991) and Green v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 111 (1997); and 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(g) (West 1991). 4. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, including if the requested examination does not include all tests reports, special studies or opinions requested, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. 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. C. P. RUSSELL 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).