Citation Nr: 0007887 Decision Date: 03/23/00 Archive Date: 03/28/00 DOCKET NO. 98-17 860 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for back disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. S. Tierney, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1992 to August 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 1998 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. The veteran presented testimony from the RO at a video conference hearing held before the undersigned seated in Washington, D.C., in September 1999. The issues of entitlement to service connection for right knee disability and back disability are addressed in the Remand section hereinafter. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal for service connection for a left leg disability has been obtained. 2. The veteran has a left leg disability involving scars due to a dog bite sustained in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A left leg disability was incurred as a result of the veteran's period of military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.303 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran contends that he was bitten in the left leg by a dog during service and that he has scars from that injury. The veteran's claim for service connection for a left leg disability is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). That is, the claim presented is plausible. The Board is satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed in regard to this claim and that VA has fulfilled its duty to assist the veteran. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1999). The service medical records show that at the enlistment examination the veteran had a left inguinal scar. No scars of the left leg were noted. The service medical records also show that the veteran was a dog handler during service. Although there are no service medical records of treatment of a dog bite, on the separation examination report, the veteran noted that he had a bite mark above the left knee. The examiner at the separation examination noted that the veteran had multiple traumatic scars. The location and etiology of such scars were not provided. At a VA examination in November 1997 it was noted that the veteran had sustained a dog bite. Examination of the skin revealed a two and a half inch long, well-healed scar on the medial aspect of the calf and a one half inch long, well- healed scar above the knee. The diagnosis was dog bite of the left knee and ankle, with two, well-healed scars. At the video conference hearing, the veteran testified that he had been a canine handler in service and that a dog bit him in his left thigh while he was stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. At the time of the incident, the veteran's dog training partner got the dog off of his leg and took him to the emergency room where the bite wound was cleaned and bandaged. The veteran indicated that it took a couple of weeks for the wound to heal. The veteran testified that he still had scars from that dog bite. He stated that, at times, the scars were painful, and most of the time, the area was numb. The scars hurt when he ran. The veteran described the scars as about one to one and a half inches long and not quite a half inch wide. The veteran further testified that subsequent to service he had had no injury to his leg that could have caused a scar. He also stated that he had not received any treatment for his left leg since service. According to the veteran, he did not think that he had any muscle damage from the dog bite. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (1999). In this case, the evidence demonstrates that the veteran was bitten by a dog during service and has residual scars on the left leg. The service medical records show no left leg scars at the time of enlistment into service. Although the records are negative for treatment of a dog bite during service, at the separation physical, the veteran reported a bite mark on the left leg above the knee. In addition, the VA examination report dated in November 1997 shows that the veteran has scars from a dog bite on his left leg. Moreover, the veteran provided sworn and credible testimony that he was bitten by a dog in service and has scars on his left leg from that injury. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left leg disability is granted. REMAND Prior to going on the record at the September 1999 video conference hearing, the veteran expressed his intent to withdraw his appeal with regard to the claims for service connection for right knee disability and back disability. He indicated that he would submit a signed, written statement to that effect. The evidence of record in the veteran's claims file, however, does not contain a written statement from the veteran to the effect that he has withdrawn the issues of service connection for right knee disability and back disability. The Board finds that clarification is necessary as to whether the veteran has withdrawn those claims. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should request that the veteran clarify whether he desires to withdraw his appeal with respect to the issues of entitlement to service connection for right knee disability and back disability. If the veteran does desire to withdraw his appeal, the RO should ensure that the veteran withdraws his appeal in accordance with the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Specifically, the RO should inform the veteran that if he is withdrawing those claims, he must provide a signed, written statement to that effect. If the veteran continues to desire appellate review with respect to either issue, the RO should undertake any indicated action and then return the case to the Board for further appellate action, if otherwise in order. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final action warranted. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This case 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. SHANE A. DURKIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals