Citation Nr: 0002454 Decision Date: 01/31/00 Archive Date: 02/02/00 DOCKET NO. 93-25592 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUE Entitlement for service connection for headaches. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Michael J. Mooney, Attorney at Law WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1968 to September 1970. This case came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 1992 RO decision which denied service connection for headaches. In an April 1998 decision, the Board denied the claim. The veteran then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 1999 joint motion to the Court, the parties (the veteran and the VA Secretary) requested that the Board decision be vacated and the case remanded; by a June 1999 order, the Court granted the joint motion. The case was subsequently returned to the Board, and in December 1999 the veteran's attorney indicated he had no further evidence or argument to submit. REMAND Since the now-vacated April 1998 Board decision, additional VA medical records have been added to the file which concern the claim for service connection for headaches. See, e.g., 1999 outpatient treatment records and examination report. The veteran has not waived initial RO consideration of such evidence, and thus the case must be returned to the RO for consideration of the records and, if the claim remains denied, inclusion of such evidence in a supplemental statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (1999). Other documents added to the claims folder since the Board decision include notices of VA medical center (VAMC) admissions in 1998 and 1999 for cocaine abuse. Actual treatment records of such VAMC admissions are not in the claims folder, and such records should be obtained as they may contain relevant information (the Board notes that some earlier records refer to a relationship between the veteran's cocaine abuse and headaches). Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 611 (1992). Prior to the now-vacated Board decision, unsuccessful efforts were made to obtain other relevant treatment records. Given the joint motion and Court order in the instant case, a further effort should be made to obtain such records. In view of the foregoing, the Board remands the case to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should attempt to obtain records of reported pre-service treatment for head trauma (with headaches and other symptoms) which occurred about 4 years before service. See service medical records. The RO should also attempt to obtain records of reported post-service treatment for headaches in Washington, D.C. in 1971 and in Alexandria, Virginia in 1983. See February 1993 RO hearing transcript. The RO should also obtain more detailed records of the veteran's January 1992 admission to Baptist Medical Center; this includes verbatim copies of all medical histories compiled when he was admitted to this hospital. The RO should also give the veteran an opportunity to submit any other medical records of post-service treatment for headaches. 2. The RO should obtain copies of all VA inpatient and outpatient records, from 1992 to the present and not already on file, concerning treatment for any ailment. Such records should be associated with the claim folder, and all entries pertaining to headaches should be noted. (The file shows that when the veteran filed his claim he lived in Oklahoma; he subsequently moved to Tennessee; and most recently he has been living in California. He has received treatment at VA facilities in all these states, and possibly elsewhere. If necessary, the RO should have the veteran identify all VA facilities where he has received treatment.) 3. After any other indicated development, the RO should review the claim for service connection for headaches. This should include consideration of the presumption of soundness on entrance into service (as noted in the June 1999 joint motion and Court order). If the claim remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case, and given an opportunity to respond, before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the RO. 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. L.W. TOBIN 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).