Citation Nr: 19177631 Decision Date: 10/08/19 Archive Date: 10/08/19 DOCKET NO. 15-38 434 DATE: October 8, 2019 REMANDED 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability, as secondary to a service-connected disability is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability, claimed as numbness, as secondary to a service-connected disability is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1962 to February 1969, and from June 1990 to June 1991, with additional reserve service. In May 2019, the Veteran provided testimony at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. The Board finds that remand is warranted to fully assist the Veteran with the development of her claims. Specifically, during the May 2019 Board videoconference hearing, the Veteran testified that there are outstanding private medical records that were relevant to the issues on appeal. The Veteran testified that she was treated for her sinuses by Dr. Franco. She indicated that she was currently seeing Dr. Mansfield and physician’s assistant Mehta for her sinuses. In addition, the Veteran was asked about private treatment referenced in VA medical records and her representative indicated that she has a list of her current private medical providers and that the Veteran would obtain the medical records from these providers. The Veteran submitted this list of providers following the May 2019 Board hearing. These providers include Dr. Samuel A. Fleishman, Dr. Stanley Gilbert, Dr. Aaron Gootman, Dr. John R. Jones, and Dr. Paul E. Szwejbka. The record includes VA medical records up to May 2014. There are many VA medical records that show a review of outside documents which were noted to be critical for the Veteran’s care at VA. These records reflect that in March 2006, the Veteran had concerns over newly onset sleeping trouble and had been seeing Dr. Franco, and in November 2006 had a sleep study with Dr. Fleishman at Cape Fear Sleep Center. Further, a July 2006 VA medical record shows active medical problems that include arthralgia and osteoarthritis treated by Dr. Franco and degenerative joint disease (DJD). Arthritis of the spine treated by Dr. Franco is noted in a June 2008 record. A January 2009 VA record referenced Specialty Consults neurology consultation of the back and leg pain and an electromyography (EMG) report. A September 2009 record indicates that the Veteran was recently seen by an outside pain clinic by Dr. Gootman for the lumbar spine and that an EMG in May 2009 showed nerve dysfunction in both legs. A March 2010 record shows that she had seen orthopedics for bilateral shoulder and knee pain and had epidural injections in a pain clinic in October 2008. An April 2013 record shows that the Veteran had chronic backache and neuropathy with arthritis and other joint pains the knees and hips and was being followed by a non-VA pain clinic, Dr. Gilbert. In August 2013, the Veteran indicated that she was seen at Pain and Laser Center by Dr. Gootman for left knee pain, which he contends came from the back. After a review of the claims file, the Board finds that there are outstanding medical records that are relevant to the issues on appeal. The record includes sporadic private treatment records from providers listed above and there are indications that additional relevant records are outstanding. As treatment for the Veteran’s claimed disabilities has been ongoing, updated VA records should be obtained and the Veteran should be provided an opportunity to identify any additional outstanding relevant private medical records on remand. An effort must be made to locate and associate any outstanding private medical records with the Veteran’s claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any outstanding private treatment records that are relevant to the disabilities on appeal, to specifically include, but not limited to, records from the following medical professionals: • Dr. Samuel A. Fleishman, Cape Fear Sleep Center, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Dr. Stanley Gilbert, Cape Fear Valley Orthopedic Clinic, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Dr. Aaron Gootman, Cape Fear Pain and Laser Clinic, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Dr. Eric Mansfield, Cape Fear Otolaryngology, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Physician’s Assistant Purvi Mehta, Cape Fear Otolaryngology, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Dr. Daniela Alexandru-Abrams, Cape Fear Valley Neurosurgery, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Dr. Paul E. Szwejbka, Cape Fear Valley Neurosurgery, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Dr. Jorge Franco, Caroline Family Practice Center, Fayetteville, North Carolina; • Dr. John R. Jones, and; • Any other private medical professional whose records would be relevant to the issues on appeal. 2. After obtaining any necessary authorization forms from the Veteran, obtain any pertinent records identified, and associate them with the claims file. 3. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records since May 2014 and associate them with the claims file. 4. After all available evidence has been associated with the record, review the evidence and determine if further development is warranted. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Cheng, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.