Citation Nr: 20037553 Decision Date: 06/02/20 Archive Date: 06/02/20 DOCKET NO. 14-28 081A DATE: June 2, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a sickle cell disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for loss of use of bilateral lower extremities is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. Entitlement to basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from May 1970 to December 1971. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. Jurisdiction of the case is now before the RO in Phoenix, Arizona. In a May 2018 correspondence, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. In August 2018, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for additional development. As discussed below, there has not been substantial compliance with the August 2018 remand instructions, so the matters must be remanded. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a sickle cell disability is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for loss of use of bilateral lower extremities is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is remanded. 7. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. 8. Entitlement to basic eligibility for DEA under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is remanded. In the August 2018 remand, the Board instructed the RO to schedule a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any psychiatric disability, to obtain addendum opinions addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s sickle cell disability, back disability, bilateral hip disability and bilateral knee disability, and to readjudicate the issues of entitlement to a TDIU and basic eligibility to DEA benefits. Currently, the record only includes a VA opinion addressing the Veteran’s bilateral knee disability. However, the appeal was returned to the Board before all the requested development had been completed; thus, the RO did not substantially comply with the August 2018 remand directives. Accordingly, a remand is required to complete the requested development. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain all outstanding treatment records for the Veteran’s psychiatric disability, sickle cell disability, lumbar spine disability, bilateral hip disability, bilateral knee disability, and lower extremities that are not currently of record. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any psychiatric disability, to include PTSD. If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner must explain how the diagnostic criteria are met and opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to a verified in-service stressor. If any other acquired psychiatric disorders are diagnosed, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include depressive disorder. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether: (a.) Does the evidence of record clearly and unmistakably show that the Veteran had a sickle cell disability that existed prior to his entry onto active duty? (b.) If the answer is yes, does the evidence of record clearly and unmistakably show that the preexisting sickle cell disability was not aggravated by service or that any increase in disability was due to the natural progression of the disease? The examiner is informed that aggravation is defined for legal purposes as a chronic worsening of the underlying condition versus a temporary flare-up of symptoms beyond its natural progression. Please identify any such evidence with specificity. (c.) If the answer to either (a) or (b) is no, is it at least as likely as not that any diagnosed sickle cell disability had its onset in service? 4. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether: (a.) It is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s back disability and bilateral hip disability are etiologically related to his active service. (b.) It is at least as likely as not that any back disability and bilateral hip disability was caused by the Veteran’s sickle cell disability. (c.) It is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s sickle cell disability aggravated any back disability or bilateral hip disability. The examiner is informed that aggravation here is defined as any increase in disability. If aggravation is present, the clinician should indicate, to the extent possible, the approximate level of disability (baseline) before the onset of the aggravation. 5. After ensuring all necessary development has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of service connection for loss of use of the lower extremities, entitlement to TDIU and entitlement to basic eligibility to DEA benefits. If any benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Journet Shaw, 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.