Citation Nr: 1303974 Decision Date: 02/05/13 Archive Date: 02/08/13 DOCKET NO. 08-36 423 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for Reynaud's disease prior to January 23, 2012. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent for Reynaud's disease from January 23 to May 21, 2012. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for Reynaud's disease, evaluated as 40 percent disabling since May 22, 2012. 4. Entitlement to an increased rating for an irritable bowel syndrome, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 5. Entitlement to an increased rating for endometriosis, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Siobhan Brogdon, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1977 to May 1980, and from April 1984 to May 1989. This appeal comes before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from a December 2007 rating decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington that assigned 10 percent disability ratings for endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome, and denied a rating in excess of 40 percent for Raynaud's disease. In a June 2012 rating decision, Raynaud's disease was temporarily increased to 60 percent, effective from January 23, 2012, and reduced to 40 percent, effective from May 22, 2012. The Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing in November 2012 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge sitting at Washington, DC. The record raises the issue of entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids secondary to an irritable bowel syndrome, and entitlement to service connection for bowel adhesions secondary to endometriosis. These issues, however, are not currently developed or certified for appellate review. Accordingly, this matter is referred to the RO for appropriate consideration. Following review of the record, the appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Board finds that the record is not sufficiently developed for disposition of the issues on appeal. Further assistance to the Veteran is required in order to comply with the duty-to-assist provisions mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002). The Veteran asserts that the symptoms associated with her Raynaud's syndrome, endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome are more disabling than reflected by the currently assigned disability evaluations and warrant higher ratings. The appellant testified in November 2012 to the effect that she received most of her care for these claimed disorders at Madigan Army Hospital, and that she received obtained occasional treatment at VA American Lake and the VA Seattle facilities. The appellant testified that those were the only places she had received treatment for service-connected disabilities. The claims folder contains clinical data from Madigan Army Hospital dating through June 2007. VA outpatient records on file date through September 2008. No more recent outpatient clinical evidence is of record, to include in Virtual VA. Such records may be pertinent to the issues on appeal and must be requested prior to disposition of the claims. As VA has notice of the potential existence of additional records, they must be retrieved and associated with the other evidence on file. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Therefore, VA outpatient records dating from October 2008, and Madigan records dating from July 2007 through the present should be retrieved and associated with the claims folder. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Request VA outpatient records from American Lake and Seattle, Washington VA facilities dating since October 2008 and associate with the claims folder. Also, request records from Madigan Army Hospital dating since July 2007 and associate with the claims folder. If the RO cannot locate such records, the RO must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them, and explain in writing why further attempts to locate or obtain any government records would be futile. The RO must then: (a) notify the claimant of the specific records that it is unable to obtain; (b) explain the efforts VA has made to obtain that evidence; and (c) describe any further action it will take with respect to the claims. The claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. After taking any further development deemed appropriate, to include the conduct of any necessary additional VA compensation examinations in light of the evidence received, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, issue the appellant and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and afford them an opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. 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 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), 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) (2012).