Citation Nr: 20052928 Decision Date: 08/10/20 Archive Date: 08/10/20 DOCKET NO. 14-22 485 DATE: August 10, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for right knee disability, to include entitlement to a separate rating for meniscal tear, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent disabling for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1969 to October 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2013 (right knee) and January 2015 (PTSD) rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO). By way of history, a March 2018 Board decision granted an increased rating of 50 percent for PTSD effective the date of the claim, November 18, 2014. That decision was effectuated in an August 2018 rating decision. In addition, the March 2018 decision remanded the right knee increased rating claim to obtain a VA examination. With regard to the increased rating claim for PTSD, the Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an April 2019 Order, the Court vacated the Board’s March 2018 decision and remanded for readjudication in compliance with the Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). In pertinent part, the JMR found the Board erred by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases for determining that a rating in excess of 50 percent disability was not warranted. Thereafter, in a September 2019 decision, the Board remanded the PTSD increased rating claim in order to obtain a VA examination due to reported worsening symptoms. 1. Right Knee Disability Since the most recent September 2019 VA knee examination, the Veteran submitted a letter in December 2019 in which he reported that he had been receiving treatment at his local VA medical center concerning his right knee, and that he had been experiencing worsening symptoms since the previous October. The Veteran further stated that his VA physician advised him to schedule an appointment with the orthopedic department, and that he had scheduled an appointment for January 2020, after which he would have additional evidence to submit. In a February 2020 letter, the Veteran stated that he was seen by an orthopedist at Cooper Drive hospital in January 2020, and that the physician told him he would most likely require surgery. In this regard, the Board notes that the most recent VA medical record contained in the claims file is dated November 2019. In consideration of the Veteran’s report of additional treatment directly related to the issue on appeal, and that such treatment may evidence worsening symptoms, the Board finds that efforts should be made to obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. PTSD With regard to the February 2020 VA PTSD examination, that examination was obtained after the case was certified to the Board. See January 2020 Board Letter. However, in a June 2020 letter, the Veteran waived AOJ consideration of the newly associated evidence. Nevertheless, the RO did not readjudicate the claim for PTSD after receipt of the February 2020 VA examination. Moreover, a supplemental statement of the case addressing any of the additional evidence pertaining to PTSD since the September 2015 statement of the case has not been issued. Therefore, to afford the Veteran due process, the Board is remanding the PTSD claim for consideration in the first instance by the RO. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. With any necessary identification of sources by the Veteran, request all VA treatment records not already associated with the file from the Veteran’s VA treatment facilities, including all VA treatment records dating from November 2019, and all private treatment records from the Veteran not already associated with the file. 2. After obtaining updated medical records, the AOJ should conduct any further development deemed necessary including scheduling a VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible). 3. Thereafter, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case addressing both claims before the matters return to the Board. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Lamb, 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.