Citation Nr: 0001374 Decision Date: 01/14/00 Archive Date: 01/27/00 DOCKET NO. 92-23 851 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic bronchitis. 2. Entitlement to service conation for shortening of the left lower extremity. 3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. 4. Entitlement to service connection for headaches. 5. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis. 6. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left wrist carpal tunnel syndrome. 7. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. J. Drucker, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from June 1980 to January 1991. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. In October 1994 and June 1996, the Board remanded the veteran's claims for further evidentiary development. In October 1998, the RO granted her claim for service connection for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and assigned a noncompensable disability evaluation. As a notice of disagreement or substantive appeal regarding a compensable rating for IBS is not of record, the Board will confine its determination to the issues as set forth on the decision title page. REMAND In its June 1996 remand, the Board noted that, in an August 1995 statement, the veteran said that she had been seen at the VA Medical Center in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. The Board instructed the RO to obtain copies of treatment records from the VA Medical Center. In a July 1996 letter to the veteran, the RO requested that she identify the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment for VA and non- VA health providers who had treated her for her claims since discharge from service. In an August 1996 response, the veteran said all requested documents had been submitted. Thereafter, in November 1996, the RO received records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that were compiled in conjunction with the veteran's application for SSA disability benefits. These records, dated from 1990 to 1994, reflect treatment at the VA medical center in Tucson, Arizona and at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona. However, there is no indication that the RO requested treatment records from these facilities in conjunction with the veteran's claims on appeal. Moreover, an October 1998 supplemental statement of the case describes the SSA records as duplicative of evidence previously received and considered, but such previously received medical evidence does not appear to be associated with the claims folders. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 612-13 (1992)(VA had constructive notice of documents in its possession.) See also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (Where the remand orders of the Board were not complied with, the Board itself erred in failing to ensure compliance.) The Board finds that VA had constructive notice of records of treatment of the veteran since her separation from service for treatment at the VA Medical Center in Tucson, Arizona and at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. Therefore, in the interest of due process, further efforts should be made to determine whether such records and others exist, and, if so, associate them with the other evidence in the claims file. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should attempt to obtain and associate with the claims file any VA or service facility medical records recently described by the veteran. In particular, the RO should request all treatment records from the VA Tucson and Davis-Monthan AFB facilities as identified in the documents received from the Social Security Administration. 2. The RO should then ensure that the requested development has been completed to the extent possible and again consider the issues of service connection for chronic bronchitis, shortening of the left lower extremity, bilateral hearing loss, headaches and sinusitis and increased evaluations for right and left wrist carpal tunnel syndrome. The veteran should then be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case at this time. No action is required of the veteran until she is notified by the RO. 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. ROBERT E. SULLIVAN 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) (1998).