Citation Nr: 18149212 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 09-00 612 DATE: November 9, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a residuals of right hand injury, to include carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and arthritis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1965 to 1967. In March 2011, the Veteran provided testimony during a Board hearing held at the RO before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. The VLJ who conducted that hearing has since retired. In September 2018, the Veteran was given an opportunity to testify at another Board hearing, but he responded that he did not want another hearing. In a May 2014 decision, the Board granted service connection for residuals of right arm injury manifest by surgical scar, but denied service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis as claimed residuals. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for other residuals to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In April 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand. An April 2015 Order of the Court granted the Joint Motion and vacated the denial portions of the Board’s decision, and the issue on appeal was remanded for readjudication pursuant to Joint Motion. In a May 2017 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of right arm injury, to include CTS and arthritis, and the Veteran appealed the decision to the CAVC. A June 2018 CAVC Memorandum Decision set aside the Board’s decision and remanded the case to the Board for further consideration consistent with the Memorandum Decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a residuals of right hand injury, to include carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis is remanded. In the June 2018 CAVC Memorandum Decision, it was noted that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons and bases in determining that VA complied with its duty to assist to make reasonable efforts to obtain private treatment records identified by the Veteran. Specifically, in April 2016, the Veteran submitted authorization for the RO to obtain treatment records from Dr. Maples for treatment dated in 1980s and 1990s. An initial April 2016 Report of Contact shows that RO spoke with personnel at the identified medical facility and confirmed that the Dr. Maples had worked there, but he had retired. The RO sent faxes to the medical facility asking for the Veteran’s medical records. In a May 2016 response, the private medical facility wrote that the Veteran was “not our patient” and the RO determined that no records were available. In the June 2018 CAVC Memorandum Decision, it determined that the private medical facility’s response was unclear on whether “not our patient” meant that the facility had access to the retired doctor’s files or could obtain them. Accordingly, a remand is needed to contact the identified private medical facility to clarify whether they had access to the retired doctor’s records, to include the Veteran’s possible medical records, and if so, take further actions to obtain those outstanding records. While not addressed in the CAVC Memorandum Decision, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s representative’s argument that VA has not satisfied its duty to assist to obtain other private treatment records identified by the Veteran. In April 2016, the Veteran also submitted authorization for the RO to obtain treatment records from Dr. Wright for treatment dated in 1980s and 1990s. An April 2016 Report of Contact noted that Dr. Wright could not be contacted at the telephone number and address provided by the Veteran, and no further attempt was made to obtain those records. The Veteran’s representative now asserts that a general internet search with the relevant information easily shows the correct contact information for Dr. Wright, and asserts attempt by VA to obtain those records is necessary to satisfy VA’s duty to assist. While on remand, the Veteran should be afforded with an opportunity to submit updated authorization to obtain records from Dr. Wright. The Board also notes that there may be outstanding VA treatment records. In this regard, in a September 2018 correspondence, the Veteran identified upcoming treatment at Temple VA Medical Center (VAMC) in October 2018 for his right hand disorder. The claims folder contains records from Temple VAMC dated through December 2015. Accordingly, on remand, the Veteran’s VA treatment records should be updated in the claims folder. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Update the Veteran’s claims folder with VA treatment records from Temple VAMC dated from December 2015 to present. All records/responses received must be associated with the electronic claims file. 2. Contact the identified medical facility to determine whether they have access to the Dr. Maples’ (retired) medical records, to include the Veteran’s records, and if necessary, obtain current authorization to enable VA to obtain records from Dr. Maples. All records/responses received must be associated with the electronic claims file. 3. Contact the Veteran and ask him to submit updated authorization to enable VA to obtain relevant evidence from Dr. Wright. All records/responses received must be associated with the electronic claims file. 4. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file. If such records are unavailable, the claims file should be clearly documented to that effect, and the Veteran must be notified of any inability to obtain these records in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 5. After ensuring any other necessary development has been completed, the AOJ should readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Murray, Counsel