Citation Nr: 18148491 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 17-08 338 DATE: November 7, 2018 ORDER The application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. The application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. The application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 11, 2016 for the grant of entitlement to service connection for tension headaches is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of entitlement to service connection of left upper extremity radiculopathy is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 10, 2013 for the grant of service connection for left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 10, 2013 for the grant of service connection for left knee patellofemoral syndrome is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, initially rated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, initially rated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for tension headaches, initially rated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity, initially rated as 30 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, initially rated as 20 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, initially rated as 20 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for left knee patellofemoral syndrome, initially rated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for left shoulder strain, rated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed August 2015 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, erectile dysfunction, and hypertension. 2. The evidence received since the August 2015 rating decision as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is cumulative in nature and repetitive of facts that were previously considered. 3. The evidence received since the August 2015 rating decision as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is cumulative in nature and repetitive of facts that were previously considered. 4. The evidence received since the August 2015 rating decision as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is cumulative in nature and repetitive of facts that were previously considered 5. The claim of entitlement to service connection for tension headaches was granted following an application to reopen which was received by the RO on October 11, 2016. 6. The claim of entitlement to service connection for cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease was granted following a claim of entitlement to service connection which was received by the RO on October 28, 2013. At the time of the October 28, 2013 claim for service connection for cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, there were no prior claims for service connection of cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease. 7. The Veteran was granted service connection for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity as secondary to the grant of service connection for cervical strain. At the time of the October 28, 2013 claim for service connection for cervical strain, there were no prior claims for service connection of left upper extremity radiculopathy. 8. The claim of entitlement to service connection for lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease was granted following a claim of entitlement to service connection which was received by the RO on October 28, 2013. At the time of the October 28, 2013 claim for service connection for lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, there were no prior claims for service connection of lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease. 9. The Veteran was granted service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities as secondary to the grant of service connection for lumbar strain. At the time of the October 28, 2013 claim for service connection for lumbar strain, there were no prior claims for service connection of radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities. 10. The claim of entitlement to service connection for left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis was granted following a claim of entitlement to service connection which was received by the RO on December 10, 2013. At the time of the December 10, 2013 claim for service connection for left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis, there were no prior claims for service connection of left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis. 11. The claim of entitlement to service connection for left knee patellofemoral syndrome was granted following a claim of entitlement to service connection which was received by the RO on December 10, 2013. At the time of the December 10, 2013 claim for service connection for left knee patellofemoral syndrome s, there were no prior claims for service connection of left knee patellofemoral syndrome. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The August 2015 rating decision denying the claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, erectile dysfunction, and hypertension is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2018). 2. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, erectile dysfunction, and hypertension. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 3. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 4. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim for acquired psychiatric disorder, erectile dysfunction, and hypertension. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 5. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to October 11, 2016 for the grant of entitlement to service connection for tension headaches have not been met. 8 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.114, 3.400 (2018). 6. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.114, 3.400 (2018). 7. The criteria for an effective date prior to October 28, 2013, for the grant of service connection of radiculopathy of the left upper extremity are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400 (2018). 8. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.114, 3.400 (2018). 9. The criteria for an effective date prior to October 28, 2013, for the grant of service connection of radiculopathy of the right lower extremity are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3,114, 3.400 (2018). 10. The criteria for an effective date prior to October 28, 2013, for the grant of service connection of radiculopathy of the left lower extremity are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400 (2018). 11. The criteria for an effective date prior to December 10, 2013 for the grant of service connection for left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.114, 3.400 (2018). 12. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date prior to December 10, 2013 for the grant of service connection for left knee patellofemoral syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.114, 3.400 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1981 to July 1984. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of April 2015, January 2017, and November 2017 rating decisions of the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) imposes obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-154, §§ 504, 505, 126 Stat. 1165, 1191-93; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2017). The VCAA requires VA to assist a claimant at the time that he or she files a claim for benefits. As part of this assistance, VA is required to notify claimants of the evidence that is necessary in substantiating their claims, and provide notice that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded. 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002); Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 486 (2006). In this case, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued notice letters to the Veteran. The letters explained the evidence necessary to substantiate the Veteran’s application to reopen the previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection, as well as the evidence necessary to substantiate the claims of entitlement to service connection; the letters also explained the legal criteria for entitlement to such benefits. The claims for an increased disability evaluation and earlier effective dates are downstream from the grant of service connection. The letters also informed him of his and VA’s respective duties for obtaining evidence. The AOJ decision that is the basis of this appeal was decided after the issuance of an initial, appropriate VCAA notice. As such, there was no defect with respect to timing of the VCAA notice. See Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004). VA also has a duty to assist a veteran with the development of facts pertinent to the appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). This duty includes the obtaining of “relevant” records in the custody of a Federal department or agency under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2), as well as records not in Federal custody (e.g., private medical records) under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). VA will also provide a medical examination if such examination is determined to be “necessary” to decide the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The claims file contains the Veteran’s available service treatment records, reports of post-service treatment, and the Veteran’s own statements in support of his claims. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations responsive to the claim for service connection for a left shoulder disorder, as well as the applications to reopen the claims of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction and an acquired psychiatric disorder. The opinions were conducted by a medical professional, following thorough examination of the Veteran, solicitation of history, and review of the claims file. The examination reports contain all the findings needed to assess the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities on appeal, including history and clinical evaluation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.327(a) (2018); Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 182-83 (2007). As will be discussed below, the weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran has not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. As such, a remand to provide the Veteran with a medical examination and/or to obtain a medical opinion on that matter is not necessary. See Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010). The Board has reviewed the Veteran’s statements and medical evidence of record and concludes that there is no outstanding evidence with respect to the Veteran’s claims. For these reasons, the Board finds that the VCAA duties to notify and assist have been met. New and Material Evidence to Reopen Service Connection In general, rating decisions and Board decisions that are not timely appealed are final. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. If new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim that has been finally disallowed, the claim shall be reopened and reviewed. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156, a claimant may reopen a finally adjudicated claim by submitting new and material evidence. “New” evidence is defined as evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. “Material” evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has interpreted the language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) as creating a low threshold. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App 110 (2010). New and material evidence received prior to the expiration of the appeal period, or prior to the appellate decision if a timely appeal has been filed (including evidence received prior to an appellate decision and referred to the AOJ by the Board without consideration in that decision in accordance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(b)(1)), will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). If VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim as an original claim for benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). If it is determined that new and material evidence has been submitted, the claim must be reopened. The evidence is presumed credible for the purposes of reopening a claim, unless it is inherently false or untrue or, if it is in the nature of a statement or other assertion, it is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510 (1992). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been provided to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction 3. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder The RO denied service connection for erectile dysfunction, an acquired psychiatric disorder and hypertension in an August 2015 rating decision. The Veteran did not file a substantive appeal of the decision, and the decision became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c). The August 2015 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claims for service connection of erectile dysfunction, an acquired psychiatric disorder and hypertension on the basis that there was no evidence indicating that erectile dysfunction, an acquired psychiatric disorder and hypertension were incurred in or caused by service; the rating decision noted that there was no record of complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to erectile dysfunction, an acquired psychiatric disorder and hypertension during service; there was also no evidence of hypertension within one year of separation from service. The rating decision also noted that there was no evidence of a related event, disease or injury in service. Evidence received since the August 2015 rating decision includes VA treatment records, VA examination reports (erectile dysfunction and an acquired psychiatric disorder), and lay statements. The VA treatment records reflect that a diagnosis of hypertension; a February 2016 VA treatment record reflects that the Veteran reported a 10-year history of hypertension. The November 2017 VA erectile dysfunction examination report indicated that the Veteran reported a history of prior treatment for erectile dysfunction, but that a review of the Veteran’s claims file and treatment records did not reflect any treatment or diagnoses of erectile dysfunction. The VA examiner opined that any erectile dysfunction was unrelated to the Veteran’s service, including his service-connected lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease. The evidence submitted subsequent to the August 2015 rating decision as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not new and material. The VA treatment records do not demonstrate that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as major depressive disorder, is related to his service. The VA examination report also fails to demonstrate that the Veteran’s current acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his active duty, including his service-connected disabilities. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder is unrelated to the Veteran’s service, including his service-connected disabilities. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder began after the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar and cervical strains and radiculopathy, but developed due to circumstances separate from the service-connected disabilities; the examination report notes that the Veteran reported that his depressive symptoms were attributable to psychosocial stressors, including loss of employment, financial issues, and a lack of a support system. At the time of the prior decisions, there was no medical evidence indicating that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction, an acquired psychiatric disorder and hypertension were causally or etiologically related to his service; the new medical evidence of record does not reflect that erectile dysfunction, an acquired psychiatric disorder and hypertension are related to the Veteran’s service. The evidence is not material as it does not provide any evidence demonstrating that his erectile dysfunction, an acquired psychiatric disorder and hypertension are due to a disease or injury during service or a service-connected condition. Although the threshold for reopening a claim is low, the evidence presented in this case is insufficient to reopen the claims. Effective Date Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increased, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of the application therefor. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran is the day following the date of discharge or release if the application therefor is received within one year from such date of discharge or release. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1). The effective date for the receipt of new and material evidence other than service department records turns on whether the evidence was received within the appeal period or prior to the appellate decision being issued, if so, the effective date will be as though the former decision had not been rendered. If the new and material evidence is received after the final disallowance, the effective date will be the date of receipt of the new claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q). A claim is defined as a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p) (2018). The Board notes that, effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its adjudication regulations to require that all claims governed by VA’s adjudication regulations be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014). This rulemaking also eliminated the constructive receipt of VA reports of hospitalization or examination and other medical records as informal claims for increase and revised 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). These amendments, however, are only applicable with respect to claims and appeals filed on or after March 24, 2015, and are not applicable in the present case, except for the claim of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for tension headaches. Id. at 57,686. The Court has made it clear that the date of the filing of a claim is controlling in determinations as to effective dates. A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary must be filed in order for benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). In arguing for the assignment of earlier effective dates for the awards of service connection, the Veteran argues that his award of service connection should be retroactive; the Veteran did not specify a retroactive effective date to which he felt entitled, nor did he state his reasons for seeking an earlier effective date. 4. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 11, 2016 for the grant of entitlement to service connection for tension headaches The record shows that the Veteran initially filed a claim of entitlement to service connection for headaches in July 2015. His claim was denied in an August 2015 rating decision. No evidence was submitted within one year of this denial and no appeal was taken from this denial. Thus, it became final. On October 11, 2016, VA received the Veteran’s application to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for headaches. The Veteran’s application to reopen was denied in January 2017, and the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement. In November 2017, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim. Thereafter, in November 2017, the RO granted service connection for tension headaches and assigned an effective date of October 11, 2016. Reviewing the evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran’s current claim is one to reopen and not a claim for direct service connection. His initial claim for compensation for headaches was received in July 2015 and was finally denied in August 2015, thus, any subsequent claim would be an attempt to reopen this finally denied claim. As a result, the provisions of section 3.400(q) are applicable here and not those governing the assignment of an effective date for direct service connection claims. The Veteran’s July 2015 claim for benefits based on headaches was finally adjudicated in an August 2015 rating decision. No relevant evidence or formal or informal claim relating to compensation for headaches was received by VA prior to October 11, 2016. Accordingly, the August 2015 rating decision is a prior final disallowance, and the Board finds that October 11, 2013 represents the earliest possible date for the date a claim was received. Applying the regulations discussed above, the effective date for a grant of service connection following a final prior disallowance is the date of receipt of the application to reopen, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). If entitlement arose prior to October 11, 2016, the date the application to reopen was received, then, October 11, 2016 is the later date and the appropriate effective date; if entitlement arose after October 11, 2016, then the Veteran is still not entitled to an effective date earlier than October 11, 2016, as the effective date should be the later of the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose. As such, the AOJ assigned the earliest possible effective date for its grant of entitlement to service connection for tension headaches. See Leonard v. Nicholson, 405 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Sears v. Principi, 349 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In conclusion, the Board finds that October 11, 2016 is the earliest possible date for which the Veteran is entitled to an award of service connection for tension headaches. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). 5. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease 6. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease 7. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 10, 2013 for the grant of service connection for left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis 8. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 10, 2013 for the grant of service connection for left knee patellofemoral syndrome Here, the Veteran separated from service in 1984, but he did not file claims for service connection of a cervical strain, lumbar strain, left shoulder strain, or left knee patellofemoral syndrome within one year of his separation from service in 1990; thus, an effective date of the date after separation from service is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b); 38 C.F.R. 3.400(b) (2018). Review of the record shows that the first claim demonstrating an intent to apply for benefits for cervical strain and lumbar strain was received on October 28, 2013; the first claim demonstrating an intent to apply for benefits for left shoulder strain and left knee patellofemoral syndrome was received on December 10, 2013. Thus, an earlier effective date based on a prior, pending, unadjudicated claim is not warranted. Id. To the extent that the Veteran argues that he should be entitled to an earlier effective date based on the diagnosis of a cervical strain, lumbar strain, left shoulder strain, or left knee patellofemoral syndrome, the Board points out that there is no provision in the law for awarding an earlier effective date based simply on the presence of the disability or treatment therefor. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998) (the mere presence of medical evidence of a condition does not establish an intent on the part of the veteran to seek service connection for the disability). See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (requiring claimants to file formal application after informal claim is accepted and proper form is provided). Thus, his date of first treatment cannot serve as the date of claim in this case as there was no intent to file for benefits at that time. As noted, an effective date is assigned based on when entitlement arose or the date the claim was received, whichever is later. In this case, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran reports in-service onset for his cervical strain, lumbar strain, left shoulder strain, and left knee patellofemoral syndrome. However, the date the Veteran’s claims for service connection for cervical strain and lumbar strain were received was on October 28, 2013, and the date the Veteran’s claims for a left shoulder strain and left knee patellofemoral syndrome were received was December 10, 2013. No prior claims are of record, and even if entitlement arose in service, the date of receipt of the claims is the later of the dates, and is the proper effective date here. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2018). Therefore, under the laws and regulations pertaining to effective dates, October 28, 2013, is the appropriate effective date for the grant of entitlement to service connection for a cervical strain and a lumbar strain, and December 10, 2013 is the appropriate effective date for the grant of entitlement to service connection for left shoulder strain and left knee patellofemoral syndrome. 9. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of entitlement to service connection of left upper extremity radiculopathy 10. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity 11. Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity In this case, no claim for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities was received by the RO. The Veteran does not assert that he submitted a formal or informal claim for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities prior to the date of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a cervical strain and a lumbar strain. To this point, the Board reiterates that a claim is defined as a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155 (2018). In this case, the Veteran’s radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities was diagnosed at the Veteran’s March 2015 VA cervical and lumbar spine examinations. The VA examination reports indicated that the Veteran had radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities, and the RO awarded service connection for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities, as secondary to the grant of entitlement to service connection for cervical strain and lumbar strain. As discussed earlier, the Veteran the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for cervical strain and lumbar strain in an April 2015 rating decision, and an effective date of October 28, 2013 was assigned. The Board points out that the effective date for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities is based on the grant of service connection for cervical strain and lumbar strain. The effective date of the grant of service-connected compensation for cervical strain and lumbar strain is October 28, 2013. The Veteran cannot receive compensation for a secondary condition prior to the date of the award of service connection for the primary condition. Thus, the Board finds that the date the Veteran’s claim for compensation for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities is October 28, 2013. Accordingly, the Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to October 28, 2013 for the grant of service connection for radiculopathy of the left upper extremity and radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, initially rated as 10 percent disabling is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, initially rated as 10 percent disabling is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for tension headaches, initially rated as 10 percent disabling is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for left upper extremity radiculopathy, initially rated as 30 percent disabling is remanded. 5. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, initially rated as 20 percent disabling is remanded. 6. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, initially rated as 20 percent disabling is remanded. 7. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for a left shoulder disability, initially rated as 10 percent disabling is remanded. 8. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for a left knee disability initially rated as 20 percent disabling is remanded. 9. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU) is remanded. The Veteran asserts that the symptoms of his service-connected tension headaches, cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, radiculopathy of the left upper extremity, radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities, left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis, and left knee patellofemoral syndrome are more severe than presently evaluated. The Board observes that Veteran has not been afforded VA examinations since his claims for service connection, in March 2015, with the exception of a November 2017 headaches examination. As such, the Veteran must be provided with examinations which consider the current severity of his service-connected disabilities on appeal. See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). See also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997) (holding that the Veteran was entitled to a new examination after a two-year period between the last VA examination and the Veteran's contention that the pertinent disability had increased in severity). In this regard, the Board points out that the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. Thus, the CAVC’s holding in Correia establishes additional requirements that must be met prior to finding that a VA examination is adequate. In light of Correia, the Veteran must be provided VA examinations which provide range of motion in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing, for the Veteran’s service-connected cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis, and left knee patellofemoral syndrome. As a preliminary matter, a claim for increased evaluation includes a claim for a TDIU where there are allegations of worsening disability and related unemployability. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Here, the Board notes that the Veteran has not yet filed a formal claim of entitlement to a TDIU; however, the Veteran’s attorney has repeatedly argued that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities render him unemployable. On remand, the TDIU claim must be developed and adjudicated. Regarding the claim for TDIU, the ultimate responsibility for a TDIU determination is a factual one rather than a medical question. Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In this case, the record is not sufficient for the Board to make such a determination, and an examination is needed to allow the Board to make a fully informed decision in this case. Furthermore, VA must make all necessary efforts to obtain relevant records in the possession of a Federal agency. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. See also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). All available VA treatment records for the claims on appeal should be associated with the Veteran’s claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Veteran a notice letter which advises him of the criteria needed to substantiate a claim for a TDIU. In addition, conduct any additional necessary development for the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to a TDIU. 2. The Veteran should be provided with a VA examination in order to obtain an opinion as to the impact of his service-connected disabilities on his ability to perform physical and mental tasks in a work-like setting, without regard to the Veteran’s age or the impact of any nonservice-connected disabilities. 3. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for his service-connected disabilities on appeal. The Veteran should be requested to sign any necessary authorization for release of medical records to VA, and appropriate steps should be made to obtain any identified records. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. If the records are unavailable, notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 4. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, the RO should schedule the Veteran for VA cervical and lumbar spine, left shoulder, and left knee examinations to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of the Veteran’s service-connected cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis, and left knee patellofemoral syndrome. The claims file should be made available to the examiners for review in connection with the examinations. The examination reports should include a statement as to the effect of the service-connected cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis, and left knee patellofemoral syndrome on his occupational functioning and daily activities. In particular, the VA examination must include range of motion testing for the right and left shoulders and knees, as well as range of motion testing for the cervical and thoracolumbar spine in the following areas: • Active motion; • Passive motion; • Weight-bearing; and • Nonweight-bearing If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. 5. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected tension headaches. The VA examiner is requested to identify all symptoms of the Veteran’s tension headaches. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. Any indication that the Veteran’s complaints or other symptomatology are not in accord with the objective findings on examination should be directly addressed and discussed in the examination report. The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. 5. The Veteran should be provided VA peripheral nerves examination in order to evaluate the Veteran’s current severity and manifestations of the service-connected radiculopathy of the left upper extremity, right lower extremity, and left lower extremity. Any indications that the Veteran's complaints or other symptomatology are not in accord with the objective findings on examination should be directly addressed and discussed in the examination report. The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. 6. The Veteran should be provided with a VA examination in order to obtain an opinion as to the impact of his service-connected disabilities on his ability to perform physical and mental tasks in a work-like setting, without regard to the Veteran’s age or the impact of any nonservice-connected disabilities. 7. After completing all indicated development, the RO should readjudicate the Veteran’s claims for increased disability ratings for service-connected tension headaches, cervical strain with spondylosis and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease, lumbar strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease, radiculopathy of the left upper extremity, radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities, left shoulder strain with degenerative arthritis, and left knee patellofemoral syndrome; the RO should also adjudicate the claim of entitlement to TDIU. If any of the claims remain denied, the Veteran should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity for response. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Hallie E. Brokowsky, Counsel