Citation Nr: 21000018 Decision Date: 01/04/21 Archive Date: 01/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-13 822 DATE: January 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition, claimed as asthma, is remanded. Entitlement to a skin condition, claimed as dermatitis, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating for coronary artery disease (CAD) in excess of 10 percent prior to September 22, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for CAD in excess of 60 percent since September 22, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to August 1971, with combat service in the Republic of Vietnam. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. In June 2018, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. At the hearing, the Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to TDIU as part of his increased rating claims on appeal. Thus, the Board has jurisdiction over this issue. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In November 2018, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for further development. In June 2020, the RO, in a rating decision, granted service connection for hypertension. See June 2020 Rating Decision. This was prior to certification of the appeal to the Board. The Board finds that this grant of service connection constitutes a full award of the benefit sought on appeal with respect to this issue, and is no longer on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (2019). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory condition, claimed as asthma, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a skin condition, claimed as dermatitis, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an initial rating for CAD in excess of 10 percent prior to September 22, 2016, is remanded. 5. Entitlement to an increased rating for CAD in excess of 60 percent since September 22, 2016, is remanded. 6. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. A February 2012 letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) indicates that the Veteran became disabled for SSA purposes in March 2012. On remand, the AOJ should attempt to obtain any existing SSA records used to determine that the Veteran is disabled. The Board notes that the record is not complete as medical and legal documents pertaining to the Veteran’s award of disability benefits with the Social Security Administration (SSA) have not been associated with the claims folder. When VA has actual notice of the existence of relevant SSA records, the duty to assist includes requesting those records from SSA. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Board finds that these records should be obtained prior to adjudication of the Veteran’s claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Request from SSA copies of documents, including medical records and any decisions, issued in connection with the Veteran's claim for benefits. All attempts to obtain records should be documented in the claims folder. (continued on the next page) 3. After completing the actions detailed above, readjudicate the claims remaining on appeal. If any benefit is not granted in full, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael J. O’Connor 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.