Citation Nr: 18158494 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/17/18 DOCKET NO. 08-19 979 DATE: December 18, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for arthritis (claimed as other than arthritis of the feet) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 24, 2007 for the grant of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from May 1972 to January 1975; service in the Marine Corps Reserves from November 1971 to May 1972 for active duty for training; and service in the Army National Guard from March 1981 to March 1985; from March 1990 to May 1991 and from September 1993 to September 1996. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a December 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Honolulu, Hawaii, that denied reopening of claims for service connection for degenerative arthritis and bilateral hearing loss. The Board denied reopening of the claims in a May 2010 decision. The Veteran appealed that Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and in a February 2013 Memorandum Decision, the Court set aside the May 2010 Board decision. These claims were before the Board in January 2015, at which time the Board reopened the Veteran’s claims and remanded them for additional development. In September 2016, the Board remanded the issues for further development. The Board notes that the issue of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, was previously before it. However, in a January 2016 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for this claim. As such, the Board finds that this issue has been granted in full and it is no longer before it. Accordingly, no further discussion regarding entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II shall ensue. In July 2016, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with a July 2016 rating decision. Also, in August 2017, the Veteran filed a timely NOD with a June 2017 rating decision. However, the RO has not yet issued a statement of the case (SOC). Ordinarily, the claims would be remanded for the issuance of an SOC pursuant to Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). However, it appears the RO has acknowledged the Veteran’s NODs and additional action is pending. See July 2016 Appeal Process Request Letter and August 2017 Appeal Notification Letter. Therefore, this situation is distinguishable from Manlincon, where a notice of disagreement had not been recognized, and remand is not necessary at this time. 1. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis (claimed as other than arthritis of the feet) is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for arthritis (claimed as other than arthritis of the feet). The Veteran asserts that he was injured during active duty in an annual training war exercise in November 1974. He reported that he jumped from a cliff, but the rope malfunctioned and caused him to have a hard landing on rocks. He suffered numerous pains in his body, especially in his heels, knees, and back. See October 2004 VA 21-4142 Authorization for Release of Information. In December 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination and diagnosed with bilateral knee arthritis. The VA examiner ultimately opined that the Veteran’s bilateral knee arthritis was not related to his military service. A May 2006 VA general medical examination reveals that the Veteran had bilateral elbow pain secondary to mild degenerative arthritis. However, there is no opinion of record regarding whether the Veteran’s elbow condition is related to his military service. On remand, the RO should obtain such an opinion. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 24, 2007 for the grant of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction is remanded. In February 2008 and July 2008, the Veteran submitted records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) showing that he was receiving benefits. However, no medical records from SSA were ever obtained. Therefore, on remand, the RO should obtain, if available, the Veteran’s medical records from SSA. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2018). In March 2005 correspondence, the Veteran stated that he received treatment for his conditions at the Veteran Hospital in Long Beach, California. However, a review of the record shows that these medical records have not been obtained. Therefore, on remand, the RO should obtain, if available, the Veteran’s medical records from the VA Medical Center in Long Beach, California. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate with the claims file. Specifically, the RO should contact the Veteran to determine the dates that the Veteran received treatment at the VA facility in Long Beach, California. Then, the RO should request the Veteran’s medical records from the appropriate VA facility for those specified dates. If such records are unavailable, the reason for their unavailability must be explained for the record. 2. Contact SSA and secure for the record copies of all medical records considered in any determination of the Veteran’s claim for SSA disability benefits. If such records are unavailable, the reason for their unavailability must be explained for the record. 3. Schedule the Veteran to undergo a VA joints examination with an appropriate VA examiner to assist in determining the nature and etiology of the currently diagnosed arthritis. The claims file must be made available and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All necessary tests should be completed. The VA examiner should address the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that arthritis (in his knees, elbows, or other joints of his body, other than his feet) is related to the Veteran’s military service, specifically, to the impact injury described in a 1974 service treatment record, and subsequent post-service records. Specifically, the examiner (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) should address the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s elbow condition. BARBARA B. COPELAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Crawford, Associate Counsel