Citation Nr: 18148819 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 16-13 013 DATE: November 8, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder to include glaucoma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an unspecified mental health disorder is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for asthma, currently rated 30 percent, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for tinnitus, currently rated as 10 percent disabling is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for a bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for Hepatitis B is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 10, 2014 for service connection for hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 26, 2013 for service connection for hepatitis B s remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 10, 2014, for service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 10, 2014, for service connection for superficial laceration scar below right eyebrow is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date prior to March 26, 2013, for service connection for asthma is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for a superficial laceration scar below the right eyebrow, currently rated 30 percent, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1974 to June 1978, from February 1982 to May 1984, and from July 1986 to April 1990. The present case stems from rating decisions from March 2014, and November 2014 by the RO in St. Louis Missouri. The Board finds that further development of the record remains necessary for proper adjudication of the claims remaining on appeal. The Veteran’s record contains a medical treatment record from February 2001 noting treatment for respiratory complaints at the Leavenworth VA Medical Center. The record also contains a problem list of active problems dating from 2003 to 2013. This list also is from the Leavenworth VA Medical Center. These two pieces of information indicate that the Veteran has been treated for his disabilities at the Leavenworth VA Medical Center from at least 2001 to 2013. The record currently contains extremely limited medical information from VA records. All VA records from this time period have not been associated with the claims file and are constructively of record. Hence, records from this time period and any updated VA records since must be associated with the claims file on remand. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that VA’s duty to assist extends to obtaining “sufficiently identified VA medical records or records of examination or treatment at non-VA facilities authorized by VA, regardless of their relevance.” Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 79 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(3)). As there is potential notice of the existence of additional VA records, they must be retrieved and associated with the other evidence on file. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). Therefore, VA records dating from February 2001 through the present should be requested and associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. This specifically includes all treatment records from February 2001 to October 2018. The RO must specifically request records from Leavenworth VA Medical Center during the period encompassed by the active problem lists (November 2003 to November 2014). If the AOJ 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 AOJ must then: (a) notify the claimant 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 claimant must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. If additional VA records are located and associated with the record, and found to be relevant to any active claims, schedule the Veteran for VA examination or obtain addendum medical opinion as needed. If no examinations are warranted the RO must provide the Veteran with a written explanation why additional examinations are not in order. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide the Veteran and his attorney with a supplemental statement of the case. DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph Montanye, Associate Counsel