Citation Nr: 20002219 Decision Date: 01/09/20 Archive Date: 01/09/20 DOCKET NO. 16-49 915A DATE: January 9, 2020 ORDER Relevant service records have been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine. The claim is granted to this extent only. Relevant service records have been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals from penile implant. The claim is granted to this extent only. FINDINGS OF FACT Relevant service department records have been received which were not part of the evidence of record at the time of the June 2009 rating. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The June 2009 rating decision denying service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine is final. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. Relevant service department records have been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine, and the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. The June 2009 rating decision denying entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals from penile implant is final. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103. 4. Relevant service department records have been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals from penile implant, and the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1984 to March 1987. The Board notes that the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder and Osgood-Schlatter of the left knee was granted in a February 2019 rating decision. As such, this issue is no longer on appeal and the Board does not have jurisdiction. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that where an appealed claim for service connection is granted during the pendency of the appeal, a second notice of disagreement must thereafter be timely filed to initiate appellate review of the claim concerning "downstream" issues, such as the compensation level assigned for the disability and the effective date); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.200 (2017). Reopening 1. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine and entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals from penile implant A claim may be considered on the merits only if new and material evidence has been received since the time of the prior adjudication. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001). An exception to this general rule occurs when VA receives or associates with a claim file relevant official service department records. A previously denied service connection claim is then readjudicated on a de novo basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c). In this case, the VA received relevant official service department records consisting of the Veteran’s service treatment and military personnel records. These records were not considered at the time of the June 2009 rating decision. Therefore, the claims are reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative arthritis, right knee is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for lower back condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection right femur condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for loss of sight is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine is remanded. Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals from penile implant is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The record indicates that the Veteran receives disability payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA). VA has the duty to acquire a copy of the SSA records, including the decision granting SSA benefits and the supporting medical documentation, if they are relevant. SSA records are relevant if either (1) there is an SSA decision pertaining to a medical condition related to the one for which the Veteran is seeking service connection or (2) there are specific allegations "giv[ing] rise to a reasonable belief" that the SSA records may pertain to the claimed disability. Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Baker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 163 (1998). The Board finds that VA has been provided factual notice of potentially relevant SSA records; however, there are no Social Security applications, decisions, or medical records associated with an SSA claim in the record. As such, any records from Social Security should be obtained as they may contain evidence necessary for the Veteran to substantiate his claims for entitlement to an increased rating for degenerative arthritis of the knee, entitlement to service connection for lower back condition, right femur condition, loss of sight, radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities and degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine and entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals from penile implant. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA and/or private treatment records. If such records are unavailable, the Veteran’s claim file must be clearly documented to that effect and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Obtain from SSA all records pertaining to the Veteran's claim for disability benefits, if any, including copies of all medical records considered in deciding any claim. 3. Upon completion of the above directives, complete any other necessary development after review of any additionally received records, to include additional VA examinations if warranted. 4. Finally, readjudicate the appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and return the case to the Board. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. A. Prinsen 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.