Citation Nr: 0004047 Decision Date: 02/16/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 97-32 420 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected post-operative residuals of amputation of the tip of the left index finger. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. A. Kultgen, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from January 1960 to December 1963. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 1996 rating decision from the Oakland, California, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which granted service connection for laceration of the left index finger with a noncompensable evaluation, effective from October 7, 1996. By rating decision in March 1999, the RO granted an increased evaluation of 10 percent, also effective October 7, 1996. REMAND In September 1998, the Board remanded the veteran's claim for further development to include clarification of the veteran's request for a hearing, and obtaining medical treatment records and a VA examination. In a statement, received in October 1998, the veteran reported that he had no treatment for his finger since discharge from service. A VA examination was conducted in January 1999. However, in his "Clarification of Personal Hearing Request," received in October 1998, the veteran indicated that he did want to appear for a personal hearing, following the medical examination. There is no indication in the record that a hearing was scheduled. In addition, it remains unclear whether the veteran wishes to appear before a Member of the Board at the RO or before a local hearing officer. A hearing on appeal will be granted if an appellant expresses a desire to appear in person. 38 C.F.R. § 20.700(a) (1999). In general, when remand orders are not complied with, the Board errs in failing to insure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). To ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: The RO should clarify whether the veteran wishes a hearing before an RO hearing officer or with a Member of the Board at the RO. The RO should arrange for the requested hearing. A copy of the notice to the veteran of the scheduled hearing should be placed in the record. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review, if otherwise in order. The veteran 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). 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. John E. Ormond, Jr. 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).