Case: Joseph S. CHICCO, Appellant, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
Abbreviation: Chicco v. Derwinski
Decision Date: 1991-07-18
Docket Number: No. 90-532
Citation: 1 Vet. App. 400
Volume: 1
Reporter: West's Veterans Appeals Reporter
Court: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Joseph S. CHICCO, Appellant, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Judges: Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and MANKIN and IVERS, Associate Judges.
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
Joseph S. CHICCO, Appellant, v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
No. 90-532.
United States Court of Veterans Appeals.
Submitted May 22, 1991.
Decided July 18, 1991.
Rick Surratt (non-attorney practitioner), was on the brief, for appellant.
Raoul L. Carroll, Gen. Counsel, Barry M. Tapp, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Pamela L. Wood, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, and David W. Engel, were on the pleadings, for appellee.
Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and MANKIN and IVERS, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Joseph S. Chicco, seeks non-service-connected disability pension on the basis that his multiple joint arthritis and other disabilities prevent him from obtaining substantially gainful employment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.17 (1990). Appellee, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary), has filed a motion for summary affirmance on the grounds that a review of the record does not demonstrate any error by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). Motion papers at 5. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) (formerly § 4052(a)).
A review of the BVA decision and record before us reveals that a remand is warranted for consideration under the principles set forth in Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990) and Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991). It also appears that appellant may have an outstanding claim under 38 U.S.C. § 351 (1988) or a claim for medical malpractice.
We remand this case to the BVA for further action consistent with this opinion. The BVA is further ordered to direct the Regional Office to examine appellant's apparent claims under § 351 and/or for medical malpractice.
It is so Ordered.