Citation Nr: 21069762 Decision Date: 11/19/21 Archive Date: 11/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 562A DATE: November 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for right knee limitation of flexion from September 9, 2017, greater than 20 percent from November 15, 2018, and greater than 10 percent from August 4, 2020 is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for right knee limitation of extension from September 9, 2017, and a compensable rating from January 1, 2021 is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for left knee limitation of flexion from September 9, 2017 is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for left knee limitation of extension from September 9, 2017, and a compensable rating from January 1, 2021 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from February 1970 to October 1973. He appealed October 2016 and December 2016 rating decisions by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In a March 2019 decision, the Board adjudicated the Veteran's increased rating claims for the period prior to September 9, 2017 and remanded the claims for adjudication of the appeal period from that date. A January 2021 rating decision granted entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), effective October 21, 2020. In a July 2021 rating decision, the AOJ assigned an effective date of August 22, 2016, as requested by the Veteran and his representative. See May 2021 VA Form 20-0996. By virtue of the March 2019 Board decision, the Board presently has jurisdiction of the appeal period from September 9, 2017, and TDIU is in effect for this entire period. Thus, the issue of entitlement to TDIU is not before the Board. Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356, 362 (2018). In October 2020, the Veteran's representative submitted a VA Form 9 requesting a videoconference hearing. In September 2021, the Board sent the Veteran and his representative a letter to clarify whether the Veteran sought a Board hearing and instructed them to respond within 30 days. The letter advised that if no response was received, the Board would assume that the Veteran did not want a hearing and proceed accordingly. To date, no response has been received. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran does not wish to attend a hearing. In September 2021, the Board also advised the Veteran that additional evidence had been added to the record since the August 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case was issued. He was offered the opportunity to waive AOJ review of this evidence by submitting a written waiver. He was instructed to respond within 45 days, and that if he did not do so, the Board would assume that he did not wish the Board to decide his appeal and remand it to the AOJ for review. No response has been received from the Veteran. Thus, remand is necessary so that the AOJ can review the newly received evidence in the first instance. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Review all evidence submitted or obtained since the August 2020 SSOC was issued. 2. Then, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an SSOC and given the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Pelican, Luke H. 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.