Citation Nr: 18148847
Decision Date: 11/08/18	Archive Date: 11/08/18

DOCKET NO. 17-12 014
DATE:	November 8, 2018
REMANDED
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for neck and back disabilities is remanded.
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for residuals of a head and face injury, including lacerations to the chin and scalp, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active service from June 1956 to May 1960.
1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for neck and back disabilities is remanded.
2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for residuals of a head and face injury, including lacerations to the chin and scalp, is remanded.
As discussed in the Board’s September 2017 remand, the Veteran wrote in his March 2016 Notice of Disagreement that in 1987 he was treated at Osteopathic Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri due to head and neck pain.  The claim was remanded in order for VA to fulfill its obligation to assist the Veteran in obtaining these records, and to give the Veteran the opportunity to identify other sources of private treatment.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c).  The Veteran was sent a letter in October 2017 asking him to identify locations of treatment and to fill out and return the disclosure forms in order for VA to assist in obtaining records.  The letter did not mention Osteopathic Hospital, as requested in the Board’s September 2017 remand, and this may have caused the Veteran to believe he had previously complied with this request.  Compliance by the Board or the agency of original jurisdiction (RO) with remand instructions is neither optional nor discretionary.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).  Therefore, the claim must be remanded for VA to assist in obtaining these records.
In addition, in October 2018 the Veteran submitted part of a December 1991 Social Security Administration (SSA) decision finding that the he was disabled from April 1989 under the Social Security Act.  However, the underlying records from SSA have not been obtained.  Those records may be relevant to the Veteran’s claims.  Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992).  Therefore, the Veteran’s records from SSA should also be obtained. 
VA treatment records to August 2018 have been associated with the claims file.  The RO should attempt to obtain all relevant VA treatment records dated from 
August 2018 to the present, while the claim is in remand status.  Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992).
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain VA treatment records from August 2018 to the present.
2. Obtain the Social Security Administration records pertinent to the Veteran’s claim for Social Security disability benefits and the medical records relied upon concerning that claim.
3. The Veteran should be given an opportunity to identify any outstanding private records relevant to the claim on appeal.  He should be asked to complete any necessary authorizations forms for VA to request all outstanding records, to specifically include those from Osteopathic Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, and the records should be obtained if the authorization forms are returned.
For private treatment records, make at least two attempts to obtain records from any identified sources.  If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in his possession.
4. Perform any other development deemed necessary.
 
Michael J. Skaltsounis
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Scott Shoreman, Counsel