Citation Nr: 21063799 Decision Date: 10/18/21 Archive Date: 10/18/21 DOCKET NO. 14-12 618 DATE: October 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left shoulder strain prior to October 10, 2013, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a left shoulder strain for the period from October 10, 2013, to November 7, 2013, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left shoulder strain for the period from November 7, 2013, to May 23, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a left shoulder strain on and after May 23, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right shoulder degenerative joint disease prior to May 5, 2011, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for right shoulder degenerative joint disease for the period from May 5, 2011, to October 10, 2013, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right shoulder degenerative joint disease for the period from October 10, 2013, to May 23, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for right shoulder degenerative joint disease on or after May 23, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 for right foot plantar fasciitis prior to February 24, 2014, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left foot plantar fasciitis and residuals of a left fifth metatarsal fracture prior to February 24, 2014, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for bilateral plantar fasciitis with residual left fifth metatarsal fracture on or after February 24, 2014, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 2000 to July 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2014. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Board remanded the case for further development in September 2015 and December 2018. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. In an August 2020 rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) increased the separate evaluations for the Veteran's service-connected left and right shoulder disabilities to 20 percent effective from May 23, 2016. Nevertheless, applicable law mandates that, when a veteran seeks an increased evaluation, it will generally be presumed that the maximum benefit allowed by law and regulation is sought, and it follows that such a claim remains in controversy where less than the maximum benefit available is awarded. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). Thus, the issues remain on appeal. In an August 2021 written brief presentation, the Veteran's representative requested a remand in order to provide the Veteran with an additional opportunity to submit any outstanding documents in support of his claims, to include information regarding any private providers, private treatment records, and employment information. The representative does not believe that the Veteran had received all of the relevant development letters requesting such information and noted that he had relocated during the pendency of the appeal. A review of the record does indicate that the Veteran relocated since the prior remand. Thus, in giving the benefit of doubt to the Veteran, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to provide him another opportunity to provide outstanding documents as requested. In remanding this case, the Board takes this opportunity to advise the Veteran that the "duty to assist is not always a one-way street" and that he has an obligation to actively participate. He is expected to cooperate in the efforts to adjudicate the claims, and his failure to do so would subject him to the risk of an adverse adjudication based on an incomplete and underdeveloped record. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his service-connected shoulder and foot disabilities. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. Any outstanding VA medical records should also be obtained and associated with the claims file. 2. The AOJ should resend relevant development letters and/or notice letters to the Veteran. See August 2021 written brief presentation regarding the September 20, 2019, November 19, 2019, and July 13, 2020 letters. 3. The AOJ should request that the Veteran complete and submit an updated VA Form 21-8940. 4. After completing these actions, the AOJ should conduct any other development as may be indicated J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Rideout-Davidson, 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.