Citation Nr: 20003379 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 18-48 725 DATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 70 percent for unspecified bipolar and related disorder, to include alcohol use disorder, is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for arthritis, to include gout and rheumatoid arthritis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2003 to June 2004 and July 2005 to March 2009. 1. The issue of entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 70 percent for unspecified bipolar and related disorder, to include alcohol use disorder. In a November 2019 statement, the Veteran reported that his disabilities have increased in severity and he was fired from his job. A review of the claims file indicates there is a pending request for a mental disorders VA examination initiated by the Regional Office. See December 2019 Exam Scheduling Request. As such a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran with an opportunity to undergo the examination, the results of which will be highly relevant to this claim. 2. The issue of entitlement to service connection for arthritis, to include gout and rheumatoid arthritis, is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has arthritis which stems from his service. More specifically, he asserts he has been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. See August 2017 Notice of Disagreement. A review of his VA treatment records reveals, that he was diagnosed with polyarthritis more than one year following separation from service. See April 2017 VA History and Physical Note. At that time, the VA treatment provider indicated an assessment of acute polyarthritis, but noted its etiology was unclear; it could have a possible infectious component or be rheumatologic in nature. A further review of his VA treatment records discloses within a year of his discharge from service he sought medical attention for bilateral knee pain, following which the VA treatment provider indicated an impression of possible rheumatologic disease. See December 2009 VA Nursing Note. Although the medical evidence of record does not contain a formal diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, it leaves the possibility that his current diagnosis of polyarthritis onset within one year of his separation from service. To date, he has not been afforded a VA examination with respect to this claim. As the McLendon elements necessitating an examination have been met, a remand is necessary to obtain one. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all relevant, outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Once the scheduled VA mental health examination is complete, associate a copy of the report with the Veteran’s claims file. 3. Once the first request has been completed, to the extent possible, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed arthritis. After reviewing the record, the examiner should: (a.) Opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) the Veteran’s current diagnosis of polyarthritis onset within one year of separation from active duty service and provide rationale for the opinion. (b.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider the relevant medical evidence of record, to include a December 2009 VA Nursing Note documenting an impression of possible rheumatologic disease within a year of his discharge from active duty service; and an April 2017 VA History and Physical Note documenting an assessment of acute polyarthritis with an unclear etiology noting it could have a possible infectious component or be rheumatologic in nature. (c.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s relevant lay statements of record. 4. Once each of the above requests have been completed, to the extent possible, readjudicate the appeal. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Suh, 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.