Citation Nr: 18152358 Decision Date: 11/21/18 Archive Date: 11/21/18 DOCKET NO. 07-26 901 DATE: November 21, 2018 ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a compression fracture at L2 from October 7, 1997, to April 7, 2003, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a torn medial meniscus of the right knee with iliotibial band syndrome and limitation of motion. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for instability of the right knee. 4. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hypesthesia of the right lower extremity (RLE) with radiculopathy. 5. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hypesthesia of the left lower extremity (LLE) with radiculopathy. 6. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a compression fracture at L2 from October 7, 1997, to April 7, 2003, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a torn medial meniscus of the right knee with iliotibial band syndrome and limitation of motion is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for instability of the right knee is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hypesthesia of the RLE with radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hypesthesia of the LLE with radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from August 1976 to November 1977. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey. The Board previously considered and denied the Veteran’s increased rating claims in July 2011. The Veteran then appealed the Board’s denied to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In March 2012 the Court issued an order granting a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), vacating the Board’s July 2011 decision and remanding the Veteran’s claims to the Board for additional consideration. When this case was most recently before the Board in March 2015, it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. It has since been returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Board is of the opinion that additional development is required before the Veteran’s claims on appeal are decided. The Board notes that the Veteran’s attorney submitted multiple requests for 90-day extensions, most recently in May 2018, to submit additional evidence and argument. These requests were granted. Review of the electronic claims file shows that the in August 2018 the Veteran’s attorney stated that the extensions granted resulted in significant evidence development including up-to-date treatment records and records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Board notes that the attorney has not submitted any evidence in response to the multiple extension requests. VA has a duty to obtain SSA records when it has actual notice that the Veteran is receiving SSA benefits. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (c)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2); Diorio v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 193, 199-200 (2006); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). As such, the Board finds that on remand treatment records and SSA records should be requested and associated with the Veteran’s claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain, directly from the SSA, complete copies of any determination on a claim for disability benefits from that agency as well as the records, including medical records, considered in adjudicating the claim. 2. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records; and, with appropriate authorization from the Veteran, any additional outstanding private treatment records identified by him as pertinent to his claims. The Veteran and his attorney are to be notified of any unsuccessful efforts in this regard, in order to allow the Veteran the opportunity to obtain and submit any such records for VA review. 3. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his attorney with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford a reasonable opportunity for response. MICHAEL A. PAPPAS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R.M.K., Counsel