Citation Nr: 21000060 Decision Date: 01/04/21 Archive Date: 01/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-24 192 DATE: January 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for history of recurrent low back pain superimposed on congenital spina bifida occulta and its associated complications, to include whether an effective date earlier than March 7, 2005 is warranted for a separate evaluation for left lower extremity sciatica is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1970 to October 1974. By history, an August 2018 Board decision granted an earlier effective date of October 27, 2006 for the award of a separate 20 percent rating for left lower extremity sciatica associated with a service-connected back disability, but denied an effective date earlier than October 27, 2006. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("CAVC" or "the Court"). In April 2020, the Court issued an order that vacated the part of the Board decision denying an effective date earlier than October 27, 2006 for the 20 percent rating for left lower extremity sciatica and remanded the claim for compliance with a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). In August 2020, the Board found that the Veteran's March 1981 letter constituted an NOD under the then applicable VA regulations and remanded the claim for issuance of a Statement of the Case (SOC) on the issue of the increased rating claim for the Veteran’s back disability, to include its associated complications such as sciatica. See Chisem v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 526, 527-528 (Under the “law of the case” doctrine appellate courts generally will not review or reconsider issues that have already been decided in a previous appeal of the same case.) On remand, an SOC on the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for history of recurrent low back pain superimposed on congenital spina bifida occulta and its associated complications, to include sciatic was issued in September 2020. The Veteran timely filed a substantive appeal. After consideration of this evidence and these facts, the Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the Board directives as the underlying purpose of the remand, the issuance of an SOC. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board notes the Veteran’s contention that the SOC did not adequately reflect the issue on appeal. In this regard, however, the effective date for sciatica is included in the RO’s characterization of the appeal as a claim for an increased evaluation for the back also includes consideration of associated neurological complications. The Board has again recharacterized the issue to better clarify that the effective date of the sciatica is indeed part of the present appeal. The Board notes that on remand an earlier effective date for left lower extremity sciatica was granted to March 7, 2005, however, because the Veteran is presumed to be seeking the highest possible benefit, and has contended the effective date for the grant of service connection for sciatica should be earlier the appeal will continue. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). In December 2013, the Veteran submitted evidence that included three VA treatment records from the Salt Lake City VAMC. A review of the record, including rating decisions and the September 2020 SOC, indicates that there were no attempts made to obtain any additional VA treatment records from this period. As such, a remand is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain any outstanding records identified by the Veteran and any outstanding records from the Salt Lake City VAMC from 1981 to 2007. Documentation of all attempts to obtain records, including any negative responses, must be associated with the electronic claims file. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Teague, 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.