Citation Nr: 0001737 Decision Date: 01/20/00 Archive Date: 01/28/00 DOCKET NO. 96-05 316A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a seizure disorder, claimed to be due to electroconvulsive therapy administered at a VA medical facility. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Phillip L. Krejci, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from October 1968 to June 1971. In January 1986, he claimed service connection for a psychiatric disorder that he attributed to a service- connected gastrointestinal disability. A March 1986 rating decision denied the claim. In September 1995, he claimed benefits, under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151, for a convulsive disorder that he attributed to electroconvulsive therapy administered at a VA medical facility. This appeal arises from a November 1995 rating decision of the Columbia, South Carolina, Regional Office (RO) that denied the claim. In a December 1998 decision, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 80 (1995), and McKnight v. Gober, 131 F.3d 1483, 1484-5 (1997), to satisfy the VA duty to inform the veteran of evidence needed to complete his application for benefits, and pursuant to Murincsak v. Brown, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992), to obtain VA treatment records. REMAND In the December 1998 decision remanding the case for further development of the evidence, we noted: At a November 1996 hearing, the veteran testified that his VA doctor had told him that "the seizures could be caused from the shock treatment." Unfortunately, VA treatment records in the claims file end with one dated in August 1995, so it is not possible, on this record, to determine whether a diagnosis was ever made, whether the etiology of any current mental disorder was ever determined, or whether, as the veteran indicated during his most recent hospitalization, Tegretol was ever stopped. Where the claimant has indicated that evidence is available that would support his claim, VA must obtain that evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103; Robinette, supra. That is particularly true when the evidence is in VA files. See Murincsak v. Brown, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). In the decretal section of the decision, we directed the RO to obtain treatment records, including VA treatment records, prepared since 1994. The case is again before the Board, but the required development has not been fully accomplished. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should obtain from the veteran the names and addresses of all health care providers from whom he has received treatment for a seizure disorder since 1994. The veteran's response, or lack thereof, to a letter seeking such information should be made a matter of record. The RO should obtain legible copies of records of all treatment identified by the veteran and records of all VA treatment provided the veteran after 1994. VA treatment records obtained should include, but not be limited to, a report of an August 1995 psychological evaluation, remaining pages of a September 1995 report of a psychological evaluation, records of an April 1996 hospitalization, and all records or reports prepared by a Doctor Trujillano. 2. After the foregoing actions have been taken, the RO should review the file to ensure completion of the required development. When the required development has been completed, and all evidence obtained has been associated with the file, the RO should review the claim. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned, if appropriate, to the Board. The veteran need take no further action until he is informed, but he may furnish additional evidence and argument while the case is in remand status. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369 (1999); Booth v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 109 (1995); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 129, 141 (1992). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims remanded to the RO by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), for additional evidentiary development or other 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, the VBA Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03, directs the RO to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. ANDREW J. MULLEN 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).