Citation Nr: 20003386 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 10-35 467 DATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis and sinusitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1976 to June 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a February 2008 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2017 the Veteran testified before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board remanded this case to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction for additional development in August 2017. On remand, and in a September 2019 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for sinusitis, and recharacterized the issue on appeal as allergic rhinitis and sinusitis. The noncompensable evaluation was continued.   1. Private Treatment Records. The Veteran contends that he has a current left knee disability that is etiologically related to service and his service-connected allergic rhinitis is more severe than currently rated. In August 2017, the Board remanded this claim in part to allow the Veteran to identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers who have treated him for his claimed conditions. The Board directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to attempt to obtain the private treatment records identified by the Veteran. In September 2017, the Veteran submitted a list of the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers who have treated him for his claimed conditions and authorization forms to allow the VA to attempt to obtain the records. The Board finds that VA failed to sustainably comply with the August 2017 Board remand directive. A remand by the Board confers on an appellant the right to VA compliance with the terms of the remand order and imposes on the Secretary a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The evidence in the record does not indicate that the AOJ attempted to obtain any private treatment record identified by the Veteran. As such and as such records may relate to both of the issues currently on appeal, a remand is required, to allow the AOJ to attempt to obtain the Veteran’s private treatment records. If any of the Veteran’s private treatment records address the Veteran’s left knee disability, then the AOJ must obtain an addendum medical opinion to address the new evidence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for the private treatment facilities identified in the Veteran’s September 2017 correspondence. Make two requests for the authorized records from the identified facilities, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. If any obtained private treatment records contain relevant evidence concerning the Veteran’s left knee then obtain an addendum medical opinion from an appropriate clinician to address the new evidence and provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any current left knee disability is etiologically related to an in-service injury, disease, or event. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Robert Batten 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.