Citation Nr: 21067418
Decision Date: 11/04/21	Archive Date: 11/04/21

DOCKET NO. 10-05 786
DATE: November 4, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to October 10, 2018 for partial neurogenic bladder is remanded.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent from October 10, 2018 for partial neurogenic bladder is remanded.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to October 10, 2018 for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to October 10, 2018 is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1982 to June 1988.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2008, April 2015, and June 2016 rating decisions.

In April 2020, the Board denied entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for partial neurogenic bladder prior to October 10, 2018, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter.  The Board also denied entitlement to a TDIU prior to October 10, 2018.  The Veteran appealed the Board's April 2020 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  In a January 2021 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties to vacate and remand the Board's decision.  In June 2021, in compliance with the JMR, the Board remanded this matter for the Regional Office to address the Veteran's February 2020 request for additional time.  The Regional Office addressed this request in the August 2021 supplemental statement of the case.  Unfortunately, another remand is necessary for further development.

In January 2021, the Board denied entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent prior to October 10, 2018 for left lower extremity radiculopathy.  The Veteran appealed the Board's January 2021 decision to Court.  In an August 2021 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties to vacate and remand the Board's decision as to that issue.

The Board notes that there is a separate AMA appeal stream of the Veteran's claims for higher ratings for his back disability, to include the radiculopathy rating addressed in the August 2021 JMPR.  The appeal will be addressed in a separate decision in docketing order.

1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to October 10, 2018 for partial neurogenic bladder is remanded.

2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent from October 10, 2018 for partial neurogenic bladder is remanded.

3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to October 10, 2018 for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded.

4. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to October 10, 2018 is remanded.

In an April 2021 statement, the Veteran reported symptoms relating to his neurogenic bladder disability and reported private treatment records, including in 2014, which correspond to his complaints.  It does not appear that the 2014 treatment records are in the claims file.  Accordingly, remand is appropriate to obtain such records.

As these records are potentially relevant to the Veteran's claims for a higher rating for left lower extremity radiculopathy and to an earlier TDIU, these matters are remanded as well.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. After securing any necessary authorization, obtain any private treatment records as the Veteran may identify relevant to the claims, including the 2014 treatment records referenced by the Veteran in the April 2021 statement.  If the Veteran provides a signed authorization form, make two requests for the authorized records unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile.

2. After the above development, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claims.

 

 

SHEREEN M. MARCUS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Purcell, Amy

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.