Citation Nr: 0005166 Decision Date: 02/28/00 Archive Date: 03/07/00 DOCKET NO. 98-11 360 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip condition as secondary to service-connected bilateral chondromalacia of the knees and residuals of gunshot wound to the left knee. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. L. Kane, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from August 1972 to May 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 1998 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North Little Rock, Arkansas, which, in pertinent part, denied the above claim. The veteran resides within the jurisdiction of the RO in St. Petersburg, Florida. In April 1998, the veteran filed claims for increased ratings for his service-connected knee disorders. These issues have not been adjudicated by the RO, and they are not inextricably intertwined with the other issue before the Board. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994) (a claim is intertwined only if the RO would have to reexamine the merits of any denied claim which is pending on appeal before the Board under the pertinent law and regulations specifically applicable thereto). Therefore, these issues are referred to the RO for appropriate action. The Board must consider all documents submitted prior to its decision and review all issues reasonably raised from a liberal reading of these documents. Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 132 (1993) (citations omitted). Where such review reasonably reveals that the claimant is seeking a particular benefit, the Board is required to adjudicate the issue or, if appropriate, remand the issue to the RO for development and adjudication; however, the Board may not ignore an issue so raised. Id. On the other hand, the Board is not required to anticipate a claim for a particular benefit where no intention to raise it was expressed by the appellant. See Talbert v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 352, 356-57 (1995); see also Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998) ("[B]efore [the RO or Board] can adjudicate an original claim for benefits, the claimant must submit a written document identifying the benefit and expressing some intent to seek it"). In this case, in the January 2000 written argument, the veteran's representative referenced the possibility that the veteran developed a left hip disorder during his period of active service, but it is unclear whether it was the representative's intention to specifically raise a claim for direct service connection. A claim for direct service connection is based on different laws and regulations than those applicable to the claim for secondary service connection that is on appeal. For that reason, any claim for direct service connection is not intertwined with a claim for secondary service connection. The veteran is hereby advised of the need to file a formal claim for direct service connection with the RO if he wishes to do so. REMAND Additional development is needed prior to further disposition of this claim. Where a claimant has filed an application for benefits and VA has notice of the existence of evidence that may be sufficient to well ground the claim, VA has a duty to inform the appellant of the necessity to submit that evidence to complete his application for benefits. See Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (1995); 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 1991). In his March 1998 notice of disagreement, the veteran stated that his doctor in Montgomery had told him that his hip problems were due to his knee disorders. Such an opinion is not shown in the treatment records associated with the claims file. The veteran should be informed of the need to obtain written statements from any medical professional he maintains has told him that any of his current hip disorders/symptoms are related to his service-connected knee disorders in any manner. It is his ultimate responsibility to submit evidence in support of his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (1999). See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 1991). Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following: 1. Tell the veteran that he should obtain written statements from any physician that he maintains has told him that any of his current hip disorders and/or symptoms are proximately due to or the result of his service-connected knee disorders. The medical rationale, as well as a discussion of the medical records on which the opinions are based, should be provided. Provide him an opportunity to obtain this evidence and submit it in keeping with his ultimate responsibility to furnish evidence in support of his claim, and notify him of the time limit within which he is requested to provide the evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (1999). 2. After allowing the veteran an opportunity to submit the above evidence, readjudicate his claim, with application of all appropriate laws and regulations and consideration of any additional evidence developed upon remand. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide the veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case, and allow an appropriate period for response. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter that the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). The purpose of this REMAND is to fulfill due process considerations. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of this claim as a result of this action. 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. BETTINA S. CALLAWAY 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).