Citation Nr: 20042045 Decision Date: 06/19/20 Archive Date: 06/19/20 DOCKET NO. 17-36 280A DATE: June 19, 2020 ORDER The appeal to reopen a claim for service connection for a right knee disability based on new and material evidence is granted. The appeal to reopen a claim for service connection for a left knee disability based on new and material evidence is granted. The appeal to reopen a claim for service connection for a right shoulder disability based on new and material evidence is dismissed as withdrawn. Entitlement to an effective date of August 28, 2006, and no earlier, for service connection for ischemic stroke is granted. The reduction in rating for prostate cancer from 100 percent to 10 percent effective December 1, 2014, was procedurally improper and is void ab initio. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) at the housebound rate from December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017 is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for diabetes mellitus is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for neuropathy of the right upper extremity is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for neuropathy of the left upper extremity. Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for neuropathy of the right lower extremity. Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a disability productive of edema of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, other than bilateral knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus, is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2014 for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2014 for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2014, for the assignment of a 20 percent rating for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2014 for the assignment of a 20 percent rating for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 8, 2017 for service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 8, 2017, for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to a TDIU earlier than April 18, 2017 is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A March 1974 rating decision denied service connection for a condition of both knees; the Veteran did not timely appeal that decision, and no new and material evidence was received within the appeal period. 2. In a May 2007 rating decision, a RO declined to reopen a claim of service connection for a left knee and right knee condition; the Veteran did not timely appeal that decision, and no new and material evidence was received within the appeal period. 3. Evidence received since the May 2007 rating decision is new, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 4. Evidence received since the May 2007 rating decision is new, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 5. On the record in the February 2020 hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran and his representative requested withdrawal of the appeal to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability based on new and material evidence. 6. An August 28, 2006 communication from the Veteran is reasonably construed as a claim for service connection for ischemic stroke. 7. In a September 2014 rating decision, the Veteran’s evaluation for prostate cancer was reduced without following the procedural due process requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(i); specifically, the RO failed to provide the Veteran with a predetermination hearing, despite a timely request. 8. From December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017, the Veteran was in receipt of a 100 percent rating for service-connected prostate cancer; he had additional service-connected disabilities separately ratable as at least 60 percent disabling. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A March 1974 rating decision, which denied service connection for a condition of both knees, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103. 2. A May 2007 rating decision, which declined to reopen a claim for service connection for a left knee condition and a right knee condition, is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103. 3. Evidence added to the record since the May 2007 rating decision denial is new and material, and the claim for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). 4. Evidence added to the record since the May 2007 rating decision denial is new and material, and the claim for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). 5. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal to reopen a claim for service connection for a right shoulder disability based on new and material evidence by the Veteran and his authorized representative have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 6. The criteria for the assignment of an effective date of August 28, 2006 and no earlier for service connection for ischemic stroke have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400. 7. The reduction of the rating for prostate cancer from 100 percent to 10 percent was not in accordance with law and is void ab initio; the criteria for restoration are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107, 5112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105 (e), 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (i), 4.115b, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7528. 8. From December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017, the criteria for special monthly compensation at the housebound rate are met. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from October 1970 to October 1973. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2014 and August 2018 rating decisions by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in February 2020. A transcript of that hearing is of record. The issues of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities are on appeal because a timely February 2019 VA Form 9 was received as to the December 2018 rating decision that readjudicated the issues in lieu of a statement of the case (SOC). The issues of entitlement to an increased rating for neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities are on appeal because the effective date of the rating assigned to peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities are on appeal. The issue of entitlement to a disability productive of edema of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, other than bilateral knee disability, has been separated from the claims for service connection for right knee disability and service connection for left knee disability in response to the March 2020 correspondence arguing that the Veteran has edema in all of his extremities, and that this claim is separate from the knee claims. Although the Veteran and his representative argued in the February 2020 hearing and March 2020 correspondence that entitlement to a higher rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was on appeal, the Board finds that this issue is not properly upon appeal and the Board cannot take jurisdiction. Although VA Form 9s were received within one year of the issuance of the September 2017 rating decision assigning an increased rating for PTSD, these VA Form 9s do not meet the strict filing requirements, which state that, effective March 24, 2015, any notice of disagreement (NOD) must be filed on the prescribed form. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201(a), 20.202(d). Although a NOD was filed on the prescribed form on September 28, 2018, this NOD was received more than one year after the September 19, 2017 issuance of notice of the rating decision, and thus is not timely. REFERRED The issues of entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism, whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a March 1974 rating decision which denied service connection for a bilateral knee condition, and whether there was CUE in the March 2012 rating decision denial of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were raised on the record in the February 2020 hearing, and are referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to allow the AOJ assist the Veteran in filing a formal claim that will allow for adjudication of these issues. 1. The appeal to reopen a claim for service connection for a right knee disability based on new and material evidence 2. The appeal to reopen a claim for service connection for a left knee disability based on new and material evidence The record contains new and material evidence relating to the existence of a current disability of the right and left knees. The Board finds that this evidence meets the low threshold to be sufficient to reopen the claims. A claimant has one year from notification of a RO decision to initiate an appeal by filing a notice of disagreement with the decision, and the decision becomes final if an appeal is not perfected within the allowed time period. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 3.160, 20.201, 20.302. A claim that is the subject of a prior denial may be reopened if new and material evidence is received with respect to that claim. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The evidence that is considered to determine whether new and material evidence has been received is the evidence received since the last final disallowance of the appellant’s claim on any basis. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273 (1996). This evidence is presumed credible for the purposes of reopening an appellant’s claim, unless it is inherently false or untrue, or, if it is in the nature of a statement or other assertion, it is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216 (1995); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510 (1992). In determining whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim, the Court has indicated that there is a low threshold for determining whether evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). In determining whether this low threshold is met, VA should not limit its consideration to whether the newly submitted evidence relates specifically to the reason why the claim was last denied, but instead should consider whether the evidence could reasonably substantiate the claim were the claim to be reopened, including by triggering VA’s duty to obtain a VA examination. Id. at 118. Moreover, the Veteran need not present evidence as to each element that was a specified basis for the last disallowance, but merely new and material evidence as to at least one of the bases of the prior disallowance. Id. at 120 (noting the assistance of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) would be rendered meaningless if new and material evidence required a claimant to submit medical nexus evidence when he has provided new and material evidence as to another missing element). Once a claim is reopened, the adjudicator must review it on a de novo basis, with consideration given to all the evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273 (1996). To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection for a condition of both knees was initially denied in a March 1974 rating decision on the grounds that the Veteran did not have a current disability of either knee. No appeal was taken from this rating decision, and new and material evidence was not received within the one-year appeal period. As such, the decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103. The AOJ declined to reopen claims of service connection for left and right knee disabilities in multiple rating decisions, including in May 2007, on the grounds that new and material evidence was not received. No appeal was taken from this rating decision, and new and material evidence was not received within the one-year appeal period. As such, the decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103. VA has received new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability and service connection for a left knee disability. Since the last final denial in May 2007, VA has received an October 2013 VA treatment record noting that the Veteran’s left knee was replaced in 2012, and the Veteran was going to have his right knee replaced later that month. This evidence is relevant to the existence of current right and left knee disability. The additional evidence is new, as it was not previously of record and considered at the time of the most recent final denial in May 2007. The evidence is relevant to the existence of current right and left knee disability. The evidence thus relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the Veteran’s claims and raises a reasonable possibility of establishing the claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Therefore, the evidence is new and material. Such new and material evidence having been received, the claims of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability and entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability are reopened. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). 3. The appeal to reopen a claim for service connection for a right shoulder disability based on new and material evidence The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. In the present case, the Veteran’s authorized representative, with expressed agreement by the Veteran, withdrew the appeal for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability on the record in the February 2020 hearing. The request to withdraw was (1) explicit, and (2) unambiguous, and (3) demonstrated a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011). In this regard, the presiding undersigned Veterans Law Judge explained the repercussions of such withdrawal, and the Veteran expressed he understood the repercussions. Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration on this issue. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the matter and it is dismissed. 4. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 8, 2017, for service connection for ischemic stroke The Veteran contends that he should be assigned an effective date of August 28, 2006 for service connection for ischemic stroke because he filed an informal claim on that date. The Board agrees with this contention. The statutory and regulatory guidelines for the determination of an effective date for an award of disability compensation are set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The effective date of an evaluation and an award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after a final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date the claim was received or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. In this case, on August 28, 2006, the Veteran filed a formal claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus and also submitted a document stating that he wished to “have the stroke condition noted in my file as of the date of claim, so it is on record - for future necessity/validation in case this is someday added to the Agent Orange list of diseases/disabilities. I am not seeking a pension payment, only the disability claim, due to diabetes type II (at this time).” The Board recognizes that this statement is confusing and contradictory, presumably due to the Veteran’s incomplete understanding of the law. However, the Veteran clearly stated that he wished this statement to represent the date of a claim for stroke. The Board must provide a liberal and sympathetic reading of submissions by pro se veterans, which the Veteran was in 2006. Veterans who are represented by a Veterans Service Organization are considered pro se. Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As such, the Board will resolve reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor and conclude that the August 28, 2006 statement was an informal claim for service connection for stroke. The Veteran has not identified, and the record does not contain, a claim for stroke earlier than August 28, 2006. As the record demonstrated entitlement to service connection for ischemic stroke prior to the date of receipt of the claim, the effective date for service connection for ischemic stroke is August 28, 2006, and no earlier. 5. The propriety of discontinuing the 100 percent rating for prostate cancer, to include entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent effective December 1, 2014 The Veteran contends that the RO acted improperly by discontinuing the 100 percent rating assigned for prostate cancer without providing the requested hearing, and that the 10 percent rating that was initially assigned effective December 1, 2014, did not represent the severity of his symptoms. A reduction from a 100 percent rating under the diagnostic code implicated in this case, which is Diagnostic Code (DC) 7528 (Malignant neoplasms of the genitourinary system), shall be subject to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, DC 7528, Note. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) allow for the reduction in evaluation of a service-connected disability when warranted by the evidence, but only after following certain procedural guidelines. The RO must issue a rating action proposing the reduction and setting forth all material facts and reasons for the reduction. The Veteran must then be given 60 days to submit additional evidence showing that compensation should be continued at the present level and to request a predetermination hearing provided that the request is received by VA within 30 days from the date of the notice. If no additional evidence is received within the 60-day period and no hearing is requested, a final rating action will be taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the Veteran expires. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e), (i). When VA reduces a veteran’s disability rating without following the applicable regulations, the reduction is void ab initio, “from the beginning.” See Greyzck v. West, 12 Vet. App. 288, 292 (1999). In this case, the procedural requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(i) were not properly followed. In March 2014, the RO proposed a reduction from 100 percent to 10 percent. In a March 2014 letter, the RO informed the Veteran that he could request a personal hearing to present evidence or argument. It was noted that if the request for such hearing was received within 30 days, the Veteran’s total rating would continue until the hearing was held and the hearing testimony reviewed. In April 2014 correspondence, the Veteran expressed disagreement with the proposed reduction and requested a hearing. Although the Veteran requested a predetermination hearing within 30 days of receipt of notice of the proposed reduction, the RO did not take action to schedule the predetermination hearing and did not contact the Veteran regarding his hearing request. The RO took final action in a September 2014 rating decision, in which the rating for prostate cancer was reduced to 10 percent effective December 1, 2014. Since the Veteran timely requested a predetermination hearing on the proposed rating reduction, and the RO reduced the rating without taking any action to schedule the Veteran for his requested hearing, the procedural requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(i) were not met, and the Veteran was not afforded due process before payment of his monthly benefits was reduced. Because the procedural requirements were not met, the reduction is void ab initio and the 100 percent rating must be restored. As the 100 percent rating has been restored, entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for prostate cancer prior to April 18, 2017, and higher than 40 percent thereafter, is moot. 6. Entitlement to special monthly compensation at the housebound rate from December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017 A January 2014 rating decision granted special monthly compensation (SMC) at the housebound rate effective March 19, 2013. A September 2014 rating decision discontinued SMC at the housebound rate effective December 1, 2014, because the rating decision reduced the 100 percent rating assigned for prostate cancer to 10 percent. An August 2018 rating decision reinstated SMC at the housebound rate effective April 18, 2017. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to special monthly compensation at the housebound rate from December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017 because the reduction of the 100 percent rating for prostate cancer was improper. Special monthly compensation (SMC) at the 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s) rate is payable where a veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent and (1) has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems, or (2) is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350 (i). Where there is no one disability evaluated under the rating schedule as 100 percent disabling, a TDIU due to a single service-connected disability will qualify. As discussed above, the reduction of the rating assigned to prostate cancer from 100 percent to 10 percent, effective December 1, 2014, was procedurally improper and void ab initio. As a result, the 100 percent rating for prostate cancer is restored. Therefore, for the period from December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017, the Veteran was in receipt of a 100 percent rating for prostate cancer and a combined rating higher than 60 percent for his other service-connected disabilities. As such, the criteria for entitlement to SMC at the 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) or housebound rate were met, and SMC at the housebound rate is warranted from December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for diabetes mellitus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for neuropathy of the right upper extremity is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for neuropathy of the left upper extremity. 4. Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for neuropathy of the right lower extremity. 5. Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity. 6. Entitlement to an effective date earlier August 20, 2014 for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is remanded. 7. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2014 for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is remanded. 8. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2014, for the assignment of a 20 percent rating for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. 9. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 20, 2014 for the assignment of a 20 percent rating for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is remanded. In January 2007, October 2010, August 2014, and February 2016 documents, the Veteran identified relevant outstanding private treatment records. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain authorization and request these records. 10. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 8, 2017 for service connection for tinnitus is remanded. 11. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 8, 2017, for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran’s representative argued at the February 2020 hearing that the Veteran should be assigned an effective date earlier than July 8, 2017, for service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus because there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a March 1974 rating decision that denied service connection for a punctured eardrum. The Veteran’s representative argues that the March 1974 rating decision should have construed the claim for service connection for punctured eardrum as encompassing claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus. Adjudication of the CUE claim could potentially affect the outcome of the earlier effective claims with regard to service-connected hearing loss and tinnitus. A CUE claim has not been adjudicated by the AOJ. Additionally, the Board finds that a remand of this matter is necessary for clarification as to whether there is a claim of CUE in any other prior rating decision. See Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278, 1282-83. The Board advises the Veteran and his representative that, for a claim of CUE to be reasonably raised, it must be pled with specificity. See e.g. Andre v. West, 14 Vet. App. 7, 10 (2000), aff’d sub nom. Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002). They are also advised that it is well established that allegations that VA failed in its duty to assist are, as a matter of law, insufficient to form a basis for a claim of CUE. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 382 (1994). Stated another way, any breach by VA of its duty to assist, such as by providing an adequate examination, cannot form a basis for a claim of clear and unmistakable error because such a breach creates only an incomplete record rather than an incorrect one. See Tetro v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 100, 109 (2000); Crippen v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 412, 424 (1996). Additionally, any allegations regarding how the AOJ weighed or evaluated the facts of the case in a prior decision cannot form the basis of a clear and unmistakable error claim. Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992). 12. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. 13. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully informed decision on the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability and entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s current knee disabilities are related to his in-service knee complaints. In an October 2013 VA treatment note, the Veteran referenced knee replacements, and as such identified relevant outstanding private treatment records. Additionally, a July 1998 private treatment record referenced an accident at work in 1981 resulting in a right knee derangement. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain authorization and request these records, including any worker’s compensation claim that may have been filed in response to the 1981 right knee injury. 14. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s hypertension is etiologically related to service, to include a notation of heart palpitations in the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) and/or exposure to herbicide agents during service. Additionally, the secondary service connection opinions of record are inadequate because they do not contain a clear aggravation opinion, and because the assertion that hypertension is not a complication of diabetes is not supported by the record. Specifically, a December 2010 VA examination notes an onset of 2008 for hypertension, which is later than the August 2018 examination finding that hypertension was diagnosed in 2006, and which was the basis for the negative nexus opinion. These contradictory findings should be reconciled upon remand. 15. Entitlement to service connection for a disability productive of edema of bilateral upper and lower extremities, other than bilateral knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes, is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a disability, other than bilateral knee disability, productive of edema of the extremities because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has such a disability, and if so, whether it is at least as likely as not caused by exposure to herbicide agents in service, or caused or aggravated by service-connected diabetes. 16. Entitlement to a TDIU earlier than April 18, 2017 is remanded. Finally, because a decision on the issues remanded above could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 18, 2017, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim for entitlement to a TDIU prior to April 18, 2017 is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from June 2018 to the present from the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and from September 2017 to the present from the VAMC in Detroit. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for the facility where he had his knees replaced or otherwise received treatment for his knees, to include Dr. P.M. of O. (which is identified as treating the Veteran’s diabetes and neuropathy in an August 2014 letter), Dr. K.P. (who is identified as treating the Veteran’s diabetes in a January 2007 letter), Dr. J.M.N. (who is identified as treating the Veteran’s diabetes and neuropathy in an October 2010 letter), and Dr. O.A. of Michigan N.S. (who is identified as treating the Veteran’s neuropathy in a February 2016 letter). Make two requests for the authorized records from any physician or facility identified by the Veteran unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Ask the Veteran to identify any agency with which he filed a worker’s compensation claim with regard to a 1981 work accident resulting in right knee derangement, as referenced in a July 1998 letter from a private treatment provider. Attempt to obtain records from any agency so identified. 4. Notify the Veteran and his representative of the requirements for filing a formal claim as to whether the March 1974 RO rating decision that denied service connection for punctured eardrum contained CUE in not adjudicating entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus. Develop and adjudicate any such CUE claim, to include as to any other prior rating decision, that is formally filed. 5. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any right and/or left knee disability. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any right and/or left knee disability is etiologically related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including knee pain and chondromalacia resulting in physical profiles during service. Any opinion offered must be supported by a complete rationale. 6. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s hypertension. The clinician must provide the following opinions: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to herbicide agents during service and a November 1972 episode of heart palpitation? (b.) If the Veteran’s hypertension is not caused by any in-service injury, event, or disease, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension is proximately due to service-connected diabetes or aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected diabetes? (c.) If the Veteran’s hypertension is not caused by any in-service injury, event, or disease, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hypertension is proximately due to service-connected prostate cancer, or aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected prostate cancer? Each opinion offered must be supported by a complete rationale. With regard to hypertension, the clinician is advised that the October 2006 VA examination as to diabetes notes the Veteran denies a history of hypertension, which contradicts the August 2018 VA examination finding that the Veteran was diagnosed with hypertension and diabetes at the same time. A December 2010 VA examination found that the onset of diabetes was in 2008. The opinion should reconcile these contradictions as to the onset of hypertension. 7. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any disability, other than bilateral knee disability, productive of edema of the bilateral upper and lower extremities. The examiner must determine whether the Veteran has any such disability. If so, the examiner must provide the following opinions: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has disability productive of edema of the bilateral upper and lower extremities that is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to herbicide agents in service? (b.) If a disability productive of edema of the bilateral upper and lower extremities is not caused by any in-service injury, event, or disease, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) proximately due to service-connected diabetes or aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected diabetes? Any opinion offered must be supported by a complete rationale. 8. 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 from December 1, 2014 to April 18, 2017. 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. U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Budd, 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.