Citation Nr: 21067223
Decision Date: 11/03/21	Archive Date: 11/03/21

DOCKET NO. 14-28 939
DATE: November 3, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a separate compensable rating for airway restriction due to residuals of larynx cancer is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 

The Veteran had active military service from August 1966 to August 1969 and from November 1969 to June 1978.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the August 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  The Veteran appeared at a September 2017 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. 

Entitlement to a separate compensable rating for airway restriction due to residuals of larynx cancer is remanded.

This matter was previously before the Board in June 2020 and the Veteran's claim for entitlement to a separate compensable rating for airway restriction due to residuals of larynx cancer was denied.  The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Veterans Appeals (Court).  In June 2021, the Court issued a joint motion for partial remand.

The Court stated that a March 2017 VA medical record noted the results of a pulmonary function test that had been received from a private provider.  However, it does not appear that this report is associated with the record, nor have efforts to associate it with the record have been made.  Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is warranted to attempt to obtain these records. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for private provider HIMG (possibly Huntington Internal Medicine Group).  Make two requests for the authorized records from HIMG unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile.  Obtain any outstanding records from this provider regarding the Veteran's pulmonary function testing and any other treatment. 

(Continued on the next page)

 

2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence.

 

MICHAEL MARTIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S. Mountford, 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.