Citation Nr: 21075544 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 16-01 229 DATE: December 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory/pulmonary disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, diagnosed as coronary artery disease, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a circulatory disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, diagnosed as solar lentigo, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for allergies is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for general arthralgia is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for recurrent headaches, from August 7, 2013 to December 15, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for patellofemoral pain syndrome with degenerative arthritis, right knee, from August 7, 2013 to December 15, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with degenerative arthritis, right knee, since December 16, 2016, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1976 to January 1977, February 1984 to May 1984, and November 1989 to June 1999. He also had additional service in the National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2016, the RO issued a rating decision which granted an increased evaluation of 10 percent for the Veteran's patellofemoral pain syndrome and degenerative arthritis, right knee, effective December 16, 2016. For the sake of clarity, the Board has listed the assigned staged evaluation for the Veteran's right knee disability as separate issues. In September 2018, the Board issued a decision, which in pertinent part, denied entitlement to service connection for respiratory/pulmonary disability, coronary artery disease, hypertension, a circulatory disability, and solar lentigo. In addition, the Board denied entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for recurrent headaches, from August 7, 2013 to December 15, 2016. The Veteran timely appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In September 2019, the Court issued a memorandum decision, which set vacated this portion of the Board's decision and remanded the matter for further development and readjudication. The Board's September 2018 decision also remanded for additional development the issues of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, allergies, general arthralgia, an eye condition, peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, a psychiatric condition, and entitlement to an increased evaluation for patellofemoral pain syndrome with degenerative arthritis, right knee. In May 2020, the Board remanded for additional development the issues of entitlement to service connection for respiratory/pulmonary disability, coronary artery disease, hypertension, a circulatory disability, and solar lentigo; and entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for recurrent headaches, from August 7, 2013 to December 15, 2016. In May 2021, the RO issued a rating decision which granted service connection at a noncompensable initial evaluation for pterygium, left eye, effective August 7, 2013. The Veteran has not contested the initial evaluation or effective date assigned for this condition. Hence, the issue is considered resolved. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (where an appealed claim for service connection is granted during the pendency of the appeal, a second notice of disagreement must thereafter be timely filed to initiate appellate review of "downstream" issues such as the compensation level assigned for the disability or the effective date of service connection). The remaining issue of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability remains pending in the ongoing appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory/pulmonary disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, diagnosed as coronary artery disease, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a circulatory disability is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, diagnosed as solar lentigo, is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for allergies is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for general arthralgia is remanded. 9. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability is remanded. 10. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is remanded. 11. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is remanded. 12. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded. 13. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for recurrent headaches, from August 7, 2013 to December 15, 2016, is remanded. 14. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for patellofemoral pain syndrome with degenerative arthritis, right knee, from August 7, 2013 to December 15, 2016, is remanded. 15. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with degenerative arthritis, right knee, since December 16, 2016, is remanded. The Court's September 2019 memorandum decision determined that since some of the Veteran's medical records are written in Spanish and have not been translated, the record was inadequate for the Board to adjudicate the Veteran's claims. In order to comply with the Court's September 2019 memorandum decision, the Board's May 2020 remand directed the RO to obtain translations of all untranslated evidence of record. Although these records were identified by the Board's remand, most of these records have not been translated. Accordingly, the Board finds that additional development is required prior to the Board's further consideration of all of the claims on appeal as the record has previously been deemed inadequate by the Court, and the Board's prior remand has already requested corrective action which was not been completed. See also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his claimed disabilities. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. Obtain Spanish to English translations of all Spanish language records in the Veteran's claims file, to include: the set of private treatment records submitted by the Veteran on March 31, 2014, which covered the period of 2009 to 2014 (Spanish language sections are mostly found in the subjective history section of these reports); Spanish discharge instructions and treatment records from the San Juan VAMC, dated August 5, 2015, February 21, 2017, December 12, 2019, and February 1, 2021; the Veteran's statement, dated November 12, 2019, associated with he claims file on November 20, 2019; and the buddy statement, dated February 10, 2016, from fellow service member, C. S. Q.-P., associated with the claims file on February 19, 2016. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board W. Yates, 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.