Citation Nr: 18143108 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 15-04 783 DATE: October 18, 2018 REMANDED 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 21, 2015, for a grant of entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease with residuals of a myocardial infarction is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for coronary artery disease with residuals of a myocardial infarction, evaluated as 10 percent disabling from September 1, 1005 to May 21, 2012. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for coronary artery disease with residuals of a myocardial infarction, evaluated as 30 percent disabling from May 22, 2012 to November 2, 2014. 4. Entitlement to an increased rating for coronary artery disease with residuals of a myocardial infarction, evaluated as 60 percent disabling since March 2, 2015. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to April 1971. This matter came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision by the Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The Veteran has alleged that June 2011 and September 2012 rating decisions were clearly and unmistakably erroneous. The Board finds, however, that the Veteran does not have standing to bring a claim alleging clear and unmistakably error because the decisions in question are not yet final. Hence, the question whether a prior rating decision was clearly and unmistakably erroneous is not before the Board. Entitlement to an earlier effective date In a June 2011 rating decision VA granted entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, effective June 21, 2005. In July 2011, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement with the effective date granting service connection. Specifically, the Veteran stated that he had been treated for the heart problems since 1981, and that he had a heart attack in 1999. However, the RO has not issued a statement of the case in response to the notice of disagreement. Where a claimant files a notice of disagreement, and the RO has not issued a statement of the case, the issue must be remanded to the RO for issuance of a statement of the case. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-241 (1999). Therefore, the Board remands the matter for the issuance of a statement of the case. Increased rating for coronary artery disease The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for coronary artery disease is inextricably intertwined with the pending appeal related to entitlement to an earlier effective date for coronary artery disease remanded above. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final decision cannot be rendered unless both issues have been considered. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Thus, the Board must defer final adjudication of the claim seeking an increased rating for coronary artery disease until the separate issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date has been perfected for resolved. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request all relevant and outstanding VA and private medical records pertaining to the Veteran’s coronary heart disease. Specifically request all VA records from Tuscaloosa and Birmingham VA Medical Centers. All pertinent records obtained or responses received should be associated with the claims file. If the AMC/RO cannot locate any Federal records requested herein, it 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 AMC/RO must then: (a) notify the Veteran 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 claim. The Veteran must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Request that the Veteran provide information and, if necessary, authorization, to obtain any additional private medical evidence pertinent to the claims on appeal that is not currently of record. Thereafter take appropriate action. 3. Issue a statement of the case addressing the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date, prior to June 21, 2005, for a grant of entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease. Inform the Veteran that he must perfect a timely appeal for those issues to be considered by the Board. If, and only if, the Veteran timely perfects the appeal, return the case to the Board. 4. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA medical examination to evaluate the nature and extent of his coronary artery disease with residuals of a myocardial infarction. The examiner is to be provided access to the claims folder, the VBMS file, the Virtual VA file and a copy of this remand. The examiner must specify in the report that these records have been reviewed. The examiner is to provide a detailed review of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history, current complaints, and the nature and extent of this disability. A complete rationale for any opinions expressed must be provided. The report should set forth all complaints, findings, and diagnoses relating to coronary artery disease with residuals of a myocardial infarction and provide a rationale for all conclusions reached. If any requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training. The examining physician is advised that she/he must discuss the Veteran’s self-reported history. 5. After completing any additional development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit requested on appeal is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, he must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, which addresses all of the evidence obtained after the issuance of the last supplemental statement of the case, and provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph Montanye, Associate Counsel