Citation Nr: 0004504 Decision Date: 02/18/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 98-09 242 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Buffalo, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for claimed meralgia paresthetica. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph W. Spires, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Coast Guard from July 1956 to July 1960. This matter originally came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 1997 rating decision of the RO. The Board remanded the case in September 1999 for additional development. REMAND In a November 1996 written statement, the veteran indicated that VA physicians had treated him in October 1996 at a VA medical facility in Waco, Texas. A March 1997 VA record noted that, due to the veteran's move, his claims folder had been permanently transferred from the RO office in Waco, Texas to the RO office in Buffalo, New York. The record also included an April 1997 request for medical information from the RO in Buffalo, New York to the RO in Waco, Texas. The response from the Waco, Texas RO noted that the veteran's claims folder had been transferred to the Buffalo, New York RO in March 1997. The Board observes that VA medical records regarding the veteran have not been requested from the VA Medical Center in Waco, Texas. Rather, the veteran's records were requested from the RO office in Waco, Texas. In May and October 1998 written statements, the veteran requested that the RO refer to 1996 "visits and consultations at the VA clinic" in Waco, Texas. Additionally, the veteran indicated that the February 1997 rating decision by the RO did not consider this VA medical evidence. The veteran also indicated that he was receiving treatment from a VA hospital in Syracuse, New York. The Board observes that these records are not associated with the claims folder. Therefore, as the record indicates that all relevant VA medical records have not been associated with the claims folder, the Board finds that the veteran's claim must be remanded for further development. VA medical records concerning treatment prior to a Board decision are constructively deemed to be before the Board. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462 (1998); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). In claims that are not well grounded, VA does not have a statutory duty to assist the veteran in developing facts pertinent to his claim. VA is, however, obligated under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) to advise an applicant of evidence needed to complete his application. This obligation depends upon the particular facts of the case and the extent to which the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs has advised the applicant of the evidence necessary to be submitted with a VA benefits claim. Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (1995). Thus, the veteran is advised that he must submit medical evidence to establish a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disabilities claimed. Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). Additionally, the Board observes that the veteran's service medical records indicate some in-service treatment for symptoms such as clumsiness, tiredness, leg numbness and muscle soreness. The record also contains more recent treatment for symptoms of fatigue, muscle tingling and muscle numbness and indicates current diagnoses of meralgia paresthetica, chronic fatigue and right thigh prickliness. An August 1995 private medical report noted that the veteran has had these symptoms "for quite a long time." Therefore, as the veteran contends that he has had these symptoms since service, he is advised that he must, alternatively, submit medical evidence to establish a nexus between his present disability and the claimed postservice continuity of symptomatology. See Hodges v. West, No. 98-1275 (U.S. Vet. App. Jan. 12, 2000); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495- 497 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1999). In light of the foregoing, the Board is REMANDING this case for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain copies of all pertinent VA treatment records, to include records of treatment at VA medical facilities in Waco, Texas and Syracuse, New York, which have not been previously secured. 2. The RO should also take appropriate steps to instruct the veteran that he should submit all medical evidence which tends to support his assertion that he has meralgia paresthetica due to in- service disease or injury. 3. After completion of the development requested hereinabove, the RO should review the veteran's claim in light of any additional evidence. If the issue remains denied, the veteran should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be given an opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no further action until he is otherwise notified, but he may furnish additional evidence and argument while the case is in remand status. Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 141 (1992); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 109 (1995); Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion as to any ultimate outcome warranted. 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. STEPHEN L. WILKINS 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).