Citation Nr: 0810128 Decision Date: 03/27/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 05-33 559 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative disk disease, lumbar spine (previously rated as mechanical low back pain), currently rated as 20 percent disabling. 2. Entitlement to an initial increased evaluation for left lower extremity, neurogenic claudication associated with degenerative disk disease, lumbar spine (previously rated as mechanical low back pain), currently rated as 10 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to an initial increased evaluation for right lower extremity, neurogenic claudication associated with degenerative disk disease, lumbar spine (previously rated as mechanical low back pain), currently rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: National Veterans Organization of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. N. Moats, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty service from July 1982 to September 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2005 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A notice of disagreement was received in February 2005, a statement of the case was issued in September 2005, and a substantive appeal was received in October 2005. Initially, in his substantive appeal, the veteran requested a Board hearing, which was scheduled in April 2008. However, the veteran subsequently cancelled the hearing in a February 2008 statement. By rating decision in August 2005, the RO increased the veteran's low back disability rating to 20 percent, effective December 10, 2003, the date of the claim. However, where there is no clearly expressed intent to limit the appeal to entitlement to a specified disability rating, the RO and Board are required to consider entitlement to all available ratings for that condition. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 35, 39 (1993). The issue therefore remains in appellate status. Further, by rating decision in July 2007, the RO granted service connection for left and right lower extremities, neurogenic claudication and assigned a separate 10 percent rating for each lower extremity, effective December 10, 2003. Because this action by the RO in effect resulted in separate ratings for symptoms which were considered part and parcel of the veteran's service-connected low back disability, the Board believes that these issues should also be viewed as being in appellate status. 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 In a June 2006 VA Form 9, it was reported that the veteran has filed for Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits with respect to his low back disability. However, it does not appear that the veteran's SSA records have been requested. Thus, the RO should obtain the administrative decisions pertaining to the veteran's claim and any underlying medical records from the SSA. See Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 67, 74 (1996) (VA is required to obtain evidence from the SSA, including decisions by the administrative law judge); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363 (1992). Further, the medical evidence of record shows that the veteran also suffers from bowel/bladder incontinence and erectile dysfunction. However, it is unclear whether these disabilities are associated with the veteran's service- connected low back disability. A March 2004 VA examination appeared to indicate that these symptoms were due in some part to the veteran's low back disability. However, a June 2004 VA examination provided that the examiner could not reliably associate these symptoms to the veteran lumbar pathologies. More recently, a September 2006 VA examination, while acknowledging complaints of incontinence and erectile dysfunction, does not offer an opinion as to causation. Thus, in light of the need to remand this case for another matter, the Board finds that the veteran should be afforded another VA examination to determine the severity of his service-connected low back disability, bilateral lower extremity disability, and any other associated neurological abnormalities. The examiner should clarify whether the veteran actually suffers from bowel/bladder incontinence or erectile dysfunction, and, if so, whether these symptoms are manifestations of the veteran's service-connected low back disability. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the Social Security Administration and obtain copies of all administrative decisions (with associated medical records) pertaining to any claim for disability benefits by the veteran. 2. The veteran should be scheduled for an appropriate VA examination to determine the severity of the veteran's service-connected low back disability, bilateral lower extremity disability, and any other associated neurological abnormalities. The claims file must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. The examiner should specifically indicate whether the veteran suffers from bowel/bladder incontinence or erectile dysfunction, and, if so, whether these symptoms are associated manifestations of the veteran's service-connected low back disability. 3. Thereafter, and after any further development deemed necessary by the RO, the RO should review the expanded record and determine if higher ratings are warranted for the service-connected low back disability and service-connected disabilities of each lower extremity. The veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the appropriate opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. 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. 2007). _________________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY 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) (2007).