Citation Nr: 21001453 Decision Date: 01/08/21 Archive Date: 01/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-00 847 DATE: January 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent (excepting three periods of temporary total disability due to convalescence) for post-operative residuals, tendon repair, and instability of the right ankle is remanded. Entitlement to a combined evaluation in excess of 40 percent prior to January 12, 2017, for partial lateral meniscectomy and osteoarthritis of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent from March 1, 2018, to August 10, 2020, and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for osteoarthritis of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from March 1983 to May 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in December 2019. This case was previously before the Board in June 2020, when it was remanded for development. The case has been returned to the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent (excepting three periods of temporary total disability due to convalescence) for post-operative residuals, tendon repair, and instability of the right ankle is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a combined evaluation in excess of 40 percent prior to January 12, 2017, for partial lateral meniscectomy and osteoarthritis of the left knee is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent from March 1, 2018, to August 10, 2020, and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for osteoarthritis of the left knee is remanded. At the December 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he had been treated by private orthopedists for his right ankle and left knee disabilities, and he reported that recent records from these orthopedists, particularly from Dr. M.S., had not yet been associated with the claims file. In January 2020, the Veteran submitted an examination report from a private physician, who cited records from Dr. M.S.; the report also noted the Veteran was being assessed by Dr. A.S. again at that time. Although the RO sent the Veteran a letter requesting authorization to obtain private records on his behalf, the RO did not specify the private orthopedists noted in the record. As these records contain a large part of the existing evidence relevant to the Veteran’s claims for increased evaluations of his right ankle and left knee disabilities, another remand is necessary to attempt to obtain these records. 4. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The record reflects that the Veteran has continued employment with the police department where he began working in 1998. On remand, the RO should request an updated employment history and perform any other development indicated by the Veteran’s response. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to authorize release of any records from his private orthopedists, including but not limited to Drs. A.S. and M.S. After securing the necessary releases, attempt to obtain and associate those identified treatment records with the claims file. If any identified records cannot be obtained and further attempts would be futile, such should be noted in the claims file and the Veteran should be notified so that he can make an attempt to obtain those records on his own behalf. 2. Request an updated VA Form 21-8940 from the Veteran, or a statement detailing his employment history, including any temporary job assignments or periods of short- or long-term medical leave during the course of the appeal. Perform any indicated development related to the Veteran’s TDIU claim. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Josey, Associate 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.