Citation Nr: 21066015 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-16 682 DATE: October 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lower back condition, to include as secondary to a bilateral foot condition, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1961 to December 1962. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. These matters were previously remanded by the Board in April 2018, June 2020, and December 2020. In February 2018, the Veteran testified via videoconference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims file. See February 2018 Board Hearing Transcript. As an initial matter, the Board notes that, in August 2021, the Veteran's representative was notified that the Veteran's claims had been returned to the Board and that they had 60 days to file a written presentation or brief. To date, no response has been received. However, as the matters are remanded below, there is no prejudice to the Veteran with moving forward without an Informal hearing Presentation (IHP) addressing these matters. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot condition is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a lower back condition, to include as secondary to a bilateral foot condition, is remanded. The Board regrets the delay associated with this remand, particularly as these matters have been the subject of three prior remands. However, based on a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that another remand is necessary as the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the December 2020 remand directives. Specifically, in December 2020, the Board instructed the AOJ to obtain any pertinent outstanding medical records, including records relating to treatment from doctors Megna, Gopinathan, Robbie, Rullo, Singh, and Paukovitz. If any records were unable to be secured, the AOJ was instructed to notify the Veteran of such, as required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). The record indicates that, in December 2020, the AOJ requested that the Veteran provide the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment of medical care providers that provided him with treatment pertinent to his claims, to include the doctors identified above. The AOJ also provided the Veteran and his representative with a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information, and VA Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information, to allow the AOJ to obtain the Veteran's medical records on his behalf. See December 2020 VA Correspondence. In January 2021, the Veteran responded with releases for doctors Megna, Gopinathan, Robbie, and Rullo. See January 2021 VA Form 21-4142; January 2021 VA Form 21-4142a. The record also indicates that the AOJ was able to obtain records from Dr. Rullo, but was unable to obtain records from doctors Megna, Gopinathan, and Robbie. See January 2021 VA Form 21-0820; February 2021 VA Form 21-0820, Dr. Gopinathan; February 2021 VA Form 21-0820. However, while the record indicates that the Veteran was notified that the AOJ was unable to obtain records relating to treatment from Dr. Megna and Dr. Gopinathan, there is no indication that the Veteran was informed that records relating to treatment from Dr. Robbie could not be secured. See February 2021 VA Notification Letter. Therefore, in an effort to ensure compliance with VA's duty to assist, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to allow the AOJ to notify the Veteran that such records could not be obtained. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e), notify the Veteran that records relating to treatment from Dr. Robbie were unable to be obtained. 2. The AOJ must review the claims file and ensure that the foregoing development action has been completed in full. (Continued on the next page) If any development action is incomplete, the appropriate corrective action must be implemented. If any report or opinion does not include adequate responses to the specific opinions requested, it must be returned to the providing examiner for corrective action. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. T. Martin III, 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.