Citation Nr: 0006078 Decision Date: 03/07/00 Archive Date: 03/14/00 DOCKET NO. 97-10 210A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent prior to June 17, 1996 for L5-S1 disc herniation, on appeal from the initial grant of service connection. 2. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent from June 17, 1996 for L5-S1 disc herniation with radiculopathy, on appeal from the initial grant of service connection. 3. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for post-operative residuals of left ulnar nerve transposition, on appeal from the initial grant of service connection. 4. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for entrapment of the right ulnar nerve with mild neuropathy, on appeal from the initial grant of service connection. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nancy R. Kegerreis INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to October 1973 in the United States Air Force and from October 1973 to June 1995 in the United States Navy. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Houston, Texas, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). During the pendency of this appeal, rating decisions have also been entered by the New Orleans, Louisiana RO and the Nashville, Tennessee RO. The Nashville, Tennessee RO now has jurisdiction of this claim. The May 1996 rating decision of the Houston RO granted service connection for the conditions in issue and assigned, effective the day following separation from service, a 10 percent evaluation to the lumbar spine disability and noncompensable evaluations for the left and right ulnar nerve disabilities. The RO termed the veteran's left ulnar nerve disability "left tardy ulnar nerve palsy." The Board has designated the condition according to the terminology consistently used by examining physicians, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.27, which requires that diagnostic terminology used on rating sheets be that of the medical examiner. The veteran perfected an appeal from these initial evaluations. In July 1998, the New Orleans RO granted evaluations of 20 percent for the lumbar spine disability, 30 percent for the left ulnar nerve disability, and 10 percent for the right ulnar nerve disability, also effective from July 1995. In May 1999, the Nashville RO found clear and unmistakable error in the July 1998 rating decision with respect to the award of 20 percent for lumbar spine disorder and issued a staged rating in which it reduced the 20 percent rating for disc herniation to 10 percent, effective from July 1, 1995, and increased the rating to 40 percent, effective from June 17, 1996. REMAND Unfortunately, the record before the Board does not appear to be complete. During the pendency of this appeal, the veteran has apparently moved a number of times, and it appears that there may be medical treatment records pertinent to his claims that have not been requested or associated with the claims file. In particular, the veteran apparently receives much of his treatment through service department medical facilities, and no request for his treatment records from such facilities has been made. It appears from treatment records that have been submitted by the veteran that he has or may have received treatment since service from VA medical facilities in San Antonio, Texas; Houston, Texas; and New Orleans, Louisiana. Whether he has received additional VA treatment in Tennessee is not known. It also appears that he has received service department treatment through a medical clinic at Keesler Air Force Base, and he may have received treatment through other service department facilities. His private treatment records may not be complete, as the reports from his private orthopedic doctors in June 1996 indicate records going to James Tebbe, Jr., M.D., and Louisiana Rehabilitation Services. In order to assure that appellate consideration is fully informed, remand is necessary to ask the veteran to provide the names of providers and dates of treatment, to include private, VA, and service department treatment, so that such records may be requested and associated with the claims file. For private treatment records, the veteran should provide appropriate releases and be given an opportunity to submit them himself if any request is unsuccessful. Accordingly, while the Board sincerely regrets the delay, this case is remanded for the following: 1. Ask the veteran to provide the names, addresses, and dates of treatment of any private medical care providers who have treated him for any condition in issue since his separation from service, as well as appropriate releases for their treatment records. Ask the veteran to provide the names of any VA or service department facilities at which he has received treatment since separation from service, and the dates of treatment for each facility. After receipt of the information and appropriate releases from the veteran, request his private, VA, and service department treatment records since separation from service, and associate all responses and records received with the claims file. If any request for private treatment records is unsuccessful, notify the veteran and his representative so that he may provide the records himself, in keeping with his ultimate responsibility to submit evidence in support of his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (1999). 2. After completing the development above, review the records and determine whether any additional development is required and whether any benefit sought on appeal may be granted. If additional development is required, undertake it before issuing a supplemental statement of the case. If any issue on appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and accord the veteran and his representative an appropriate period to respond. Thereafter, the case is to be returned to the Board if appropriate. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case in issuing this remand. The appellant 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. J. SHERMAN ROBERTS 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).