Citation Nr: 18136367 Decision Date: 09/18/18 Archive Date: 09/18/18 DOCKET NO. 17-54 648 DATE: September 18, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for mental manifestations as residuals of a cerebral infarction for the period from July 17, 2015, to July 6, 2017, is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 6, 2017, for the award of special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1967 to February 1991. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on appeal from December 2015 and July 2017 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the December 2015 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for residuals of a stroke and assigned a noncompensable rating effective July 17, 2015. The RO informed the Veteran at that time that he would be scheduled for a VA examination to evaluate his current level of disability. The RO also at that time deferred issues of entitlement to compensation for urinary and bowel incontinence until after the VA examination. The record shows that the Veteran failed to report to a scheduled VA examination in January 2016. Thereafter, in a January 2016 rating decision, the RO continued the noncompensable rating for residuals of a stroke, and denied service connection for urinary and bowel incontinence. The Veteran thereafter informed the RO in April 2016 that he wished to pursue his increased rating claim and that he was willing to report to an examination. He subsequently underwent a VA examination in June 2016, and in August 2016, the RO assigned him a 40 percent rating for residuals of a cerebral infarct identified as urinary incontinence, and a 30 rating for bowel incontinence. Both ratings were made effective on July 17, 2015 (the date of the Veteran’s initial claim for service connection for residuals of stroke). The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the assigned rating in September 2016 asserting that he wanted a 100 percent rating for his residuals. Although the Veteran initially identified the August 2016 rating decision as the decision on appeal in his NOD, the Board finds that it is the December 2015 rating decision that is the subject of this appeal. This is based on the fact that the Veteran’s September 2016 NOD is timely as to the December 2015 rating decision and because the Veteran expressed his disagreement in the NOD by requesting a 100 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. 20.200. Moreover, his representative clarified in an April 2017 statement that the appeal stems from the December 2015 rating decision. In addition, the effective date that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) assigned the Veteran in August 2016 for genitourinary residuals of his stroke goes back to the date of his initial claim for service connection in July 2015. During the pendency of this appeal, in July 2017, the RO assigned the Veteran a 100 percent rating for mental manifestations as residuals of cerebral infarction, effective July 6, 2017. Thus, the issue has been recharacterized as entitlement to a compensable rating for mental manifestations as residuals of a cerebral infarction for the period prior to July 6, 2017, that is from July 17, 2015, to July 6, 2017. Regarding consideration of a higher than 60 percent rating for urinary and bowel incontinence as residuals of a cerebral infarction, the Veteran’s representative reported in writing in April 2017 that they did not intend to appeal the evaluations for the Veteran’s service-connected urinary and bowel incontinence as residuals of his cerebral infarction. Consequently, these issues will not be further addressed. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993).   REMAND The evidence shows that the Veteran stopped working in 2014 following his stroke and that he is in receipt of benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). It is unclear if the Veteran is receiving retirement benefits from SSA as his representative implied in an April 2017 letter, or disability benefits due to his stroke. Accordingly, this case must be remanded so that the AOJ can clarify from the Veteran and his representative the nature of his SSA benefits and obtain all relevant records as necessary. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). This evidence is particularly essential in light of inconsistencies in the current medical evidence regarding the extent of mental defects as residuals of the Veteran’s stroke for the period from July 17, 2015 to July 6, 2017. The Veteran and his representative should also be afforded the opportunity to submit any outstanding relevant, treatment records regarding mental defects as stroke residuals from the date of his July 2015 claim to July 2017. 38 U.S.C. 5103A(b), (c); 38 C.F.R. 3.159. The issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 6, 2017, for the award of special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance is inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claim and is therefore deferred. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should ask the Veteran and his representative whether he has applied for SSA disability benefits based on his stroke residuals. If so, the AOJ should secure for the record from SSA copies of its determination on the Veteran's claim for SSA disability benefits (and all medical records considered in connection with such claim). 2. The AOJ should ask the Veteran and his representative to identify the provider(s) of any and all outstanding private evaluations and/or treatment he has received for mental defects as residuals of his stroke from July 2015 to July 2017, and to provide authorizations for VA to secure the complete records of all such private evaluations and treatment. The AOJ should secure for the record complete clinical records of all evaluations and treatment (records of which are not already associated with the record) from the providers identified. 3. The AOJ should then review the record and re-adjudicate the claims. If they remain denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, for further review. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Shawkey, Counsel