Citation Nr: 18147442 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 13-34 180 DATE: November 6, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to October 1967. The Board notes the issues above were remanded by the Board in May 2016 for additional development. See May 2016 Board Decision. The directed development was completed and the appeal was readjudicated in October 2017. Since the appeal was readjudicated in October 2017, the Board received requests for extensions to submit evidence in October 2017, January 2018, May 2018, and October 2018. The Veteran’s representative has not submitted any evidence during this period, but he has informed VA that the Veteran receives treatment from Miami VA Medical Center and that Social Security Administration records may be available. See June 2018 Correspondence; see also October 2018 Correspondence. The October 2018 request for an extension of time indicates that additional time is needed to attempt to obtain records. The Board finds that, in light of the repeated and extensive delays, good cause has not been shown for an additional delay in adjudicating the case. In addition, the Government can be of assistance in obtaining necessary records. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. Thus, the October 2018 request for extension is denied. See 38 C.F.R. § 30.1304(b). Further, the Board finds issues subject to remand from the May 2016 Board decision are inextricably intertwined with issues subject to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand and a Board remand that have yet to return to the Board’s jurisdiction. See October 2016 Joint Motion for Partial Remand; see also May 2017 Board Remand. The issues remanded in May 2017 have not been readjudicated and adjudication of these issue will impact the issues listed above. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. As noted above, the Board notes the Veteran receives continued treatment for his claimed psychiatric disorder at a VA facility. See June 2018 Correspondence. These treatment records can help establish the current severity of the Veteran’s condition. Those VA treatment records are constructively of record, and must be secured to allow for a fully informed appellate review. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Board notes that additional records may exist that relate to the Veteran’s claims for service connection. Specifically, evidence indicates that relevant Social Security Administration (SSA) records may exist that are not currently associated with the Veteran’s claims file. See October 2018 Correspondence. The Board acknowledges that normally VA has a duty to attempt to obtain SSA records when it has actual notice that the Veteran is in receipt of SSA disability benefits. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). In Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009), however, the Federal Circuit acknowledged that VA’s duty to assist was limited to obtaining relevant SSA records. The Federal Circuit then defined relevant records as “those records that relate to the injury for which the claimant is seeking benefits and have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the Veteran’s claim.” Id. at 1321. The Board notes that it is unclear what time-frame the SSA records cover; however, these records may contain evidence that supports a finding of service connection or a higher evaluation. Accordingly, VA has a duty to request such records as they may contain evidence relevant to the claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2) and (3) (2014); Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010). On remand, the RO should make reasonable attempts to obtain any SSA records that the Veteran authorizes for release and associate this evidence with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy is remanded. The Board finds the issues service connection for left and right upper extremity radiculopathy are inextricably intertwined with the issue of service connection for a cervical spine disability, which is subject to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand and a Board remand that have yet to return to the Board’s jurisdiction. See October 2016 Joint Motion for Partial Remand; see also May 2017 Board Remand. Therefore, these issues are remanded for readjudication with the other component of this appeal. See Parker, 7 Vet. App. at 116; Harris, 1 Vet. App. at 183. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Similarly, the Board finds the issues service connection for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy are inextricably intertwined with the issue of service connection for a lumbar spine disability. See October 2016 Joint Motion for Partial Remand; see also May 2017 Board Remand. Therefore, these issues are remanded for readjudication with the other component of this appeal. See Parker, 7 Vet. App. at 116; Harris, 1 Vet. App. at 183. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request any outstanding VA treatment records pertaining to the claims remanded herein. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims folder. 2. Contact SSA and request complete copies of any decision or determination with respect to the Veteran’s application for SSA benefits, as well as copies of all supporting documentation. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. 3. The AOJ should readjudicate all issues on appeal – including the issues from the May 2017 remand and this remand. If any benefit sought is denied, the Veteran and his representative must be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and given an opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for appellate review. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Trickey, Jonathan