Citation Nr: 19171069 Decision Date: 09/12/19 Archive Date: 09/12/19 DOCKET NO. 19-16 428 DATE: September 12, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for squamous cell carcinoma is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from September 1981 to October 2004. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision. The Board notes that during the appeal period for the Veteran’s increased rating claim for squamous cell carcinoma, the Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran indicated that he was forced to retire as a result of his squamous cell carcinoma disability. See May 2019 VA Form 9. Thus, the Board has taken jurisdiction over this issue. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). 1. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for squamous cell carcinoma is remanded. On review, the Board finds that additional development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the Veteran's claim. Specifically, it appears that there may be outstanding, relevant private treatment records. The Veteran was last provided with VA examinations related to his squamous cell carcinoma disability in March 2019. In the Disability Benefits Questionnaire specific to scars, the examiner noted that he had reviewed treatment records dated on March 12, 2019 from the Veteran’s dermatologist. The Veteran’s VA treatment records reflect that he receives private treatment for his skin disability from Dr. S. See January 2016 VA treatment record. However, the records referenced by the VA examiner are not included in the claims file. VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). This duty includes making reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private medical records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). Consequently, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain these records. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Board also finds that any decision with respect to the increased rating claim remanded herein may affect the Veteran's claim for a TDIU. Thus, the claims are inextricably intertwined. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Final appellate review of this claim must be deferred until the appropriate actions concerning the Veteran's increased rating claim are completed and the matter is either resolved or prepared for appellate review. The record also shows that the Veteran has not yet completed a formal TDIU application form, VA Form 21-8940. The Veteran should be provided with the opportunity to complete this form upon remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his squamous cell carcinoma. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. A specific request should be made for any treatment records dated on March 12, 2019, and any treatment records from Dr. S. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also secure any outstanding VA medical records, to include records dated since June 2019. 2. Request that the Veteran complete a current formal TDIU application form (VA Form 21-8940). 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to a TDIU. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.C. Spragins, 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.