Citation Nr: 0004172 Decision Date: 02/16/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 94-25 485 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota THE ISSUE Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance or at the housebound rate. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: John Stevens Berry, Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michelle L. Nelsen, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from March 1961 to March 1967 and from February 1968 to March 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 1996 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical and Regional Office Center (MROC) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In a March 1998 decision, the Board denied entitlement to restoration of service connection for multiple system atrophy. The veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) (hereinafter "the Court"). In a June 1999 Order, the Court confirmed the Board's decision on that issue. However, the Court remanded the case to the Board for action on the matter addressed below. REMAND In a May 1996 rating decision, the VAMROC denied the veteran's claim for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance. Thereafter, in February 1997, the veteran submitted correspondence which is construed as a notice of disagreement (NOD). Specifically, it took issue with "Entitlement to SMC (s)." The NOD appears to be taking issue with 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(s), a section that addresses housebound benefits. The issue of housebound benefits has never been adjudicated by the RO. In any event, a review of the claims folder does not show that the VAMROC issued the veteran and his representative a statement of the case. Because the notice of disagreement placed the issue in appellate status, the matter must be remanded so that the VAMROC may issue a statement of the case. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(1) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.9, 19.26, 19.29 (1999); Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: The VAMROC should furnish the veteran and his representative a statement of the case on the issue of entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance or at the housebound rate. The VAMROC should provide the veteran and his representative a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, and afford 60 days in which to perfect the appeal. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for final appellate review, if 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). 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. RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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).