Citation Nr: 21061884 Decision Date: 10/05/21 Archive Date: 10/05/21 DOCKET NO. 14-40 425 DATE: October 5, 2021 ORDER The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for left knee disorder is dismissed. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for skin disorder of the hands is dismissed. REMANDED The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected right knee disorder is remanded. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected hemorrhoid disability from August 22, 2013, to September 3, 2014, is remanded. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected hemorrhoid disability from September 3, 2014, to June 27, 2017, is remanded. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for service-connected hemorrhoid disability from June 27, 2017, is remanded. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected bilateral great toenail dystrophy is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. While in remand status, a November 2020 rating decision granted entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder. 2. While in remand status, a November 2020 rating decision granted entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder of the hands. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. As the benefit sought on appeal with respect to the matter of service connection for left knee disorder has been granted, there remains no case or controversy as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for left knee disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 7105(d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2020). 2. As the benefit sought on appeal with respect to the matter of service connection for skin disorder of the hands has been granted, there remains no case or controversy as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for skin disorder of the hands. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 7105(d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from June 1982 to July 1992, January 2002 to October 2002, February 2004 to April 2004, and from May 2013 to August 2013. His service was under honorable conditions. The matters are on appeal from March 2014 and July 2014 rating decisions. In August 2015, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of this hearing has been prepared and associated with the evidence of record. The VLJ who conducted the August 2015 hearing is no longer with the Board. In a December 2018 letter, the Board notified the Veteran of this and afforded him the opportunity for a new hearing before another VLJ. No response has been received. Therefore, as notified in the December 2018 letter, the Board will proceed assuming another hearing is not sought with respect to these matters. In December 2016 and July 2020, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for further evidentiary development. The issues have returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. In July 2020, the Board in pertinent part, denied the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral great toenail dystrophy. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). While the matter was pending before the Court, in August 2021, the Veteran's representative and a representative of VA's General Counsel filed a joint motion for partial remand. In August 2021, the Court granted the parties' motion, vacated the Board's July 2020 decision denying an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected bilateral great toenail dystrophy, and remanded the matter for action consistent with the terms of the joint motion. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 1. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disorder. See argument Below at 2 2. Entitlement to service connection for skin disorder of the hands. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. In this case, a November 2020 rating decision granted the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for left knee and skin disorders. These actions resolved the claims for service connection. As a result, no case or controversy regarding the matter of service connection for left knee or skin disorders remain, and there is no remaining allegation of error of fact or law for appellate consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d)(5). Accordingly, the Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal with respect to these matters, and these matters are dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected right knee disorder. See argument Below at 5 2. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected hemorrhoid disability from August 22, 2013 to September 3, 2014. See argument Below at 5 3. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected hemorrhoid disability from September 3, 2014, to June 27, 2017. See argument Below at 5 4. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for service-connected hemorrhoid disability from June 27, 2017. See argument Below at 5 5. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected bilateral great toenail dystrophy. When the Board last reviewed the claim in December 2016, it noted that the record contained specific notations that VA Choice and non-VA orthopedic and primary care notes pertinent to the appeal existed; however, they were not associated with the record. In this regard, the Board notes that private records from multiple providers dated in September 2014 through September 2018, have not been obtained and associated with the record. Specifically, a September 2014 colonoscopy reported that is pertinent to the increased rating claim for the service-connected hemorrhoid disability, orthopedic consultations dated in 2016 and 2017 pertinent to the increased rating claim for the service-connected right knee disability, and primary care records dated in 2014 through 2018 potentially pertinent to the increased rating claim for the service-connected bilateral great toenail dystrophy disability. Accordingly, to ensure compliance with the directives of the December 2016 remand, the aforementioned private treatment records must be obtained and associated with the record. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran's claim, to include VA outpatient treatment records dated in July 2017 through the present, and any private treatment records identified by the Veteran, to include primary care and orthopedic records (VA Choice) dated in January 2014 through December 2018. If any requested records are unavailable, or the search for such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact should clearly be documented in the record and the Veteran so notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). All steps taken to attempt to obtain the above records should clearly be documented in the record. 2. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record, perform any necessary development, and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the appeal is denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case, afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Schinnerer, 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.