Citation Nr: 21076866 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 102 DATE: December 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for restless leg syndrome (also claimed as periodic limb movement disorder) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual employability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty for training (ACDUTRA) with the Army National Guard from January 1967 to May 1967 and served on active duty from October 1990 to May 1991. He also had periods of ACDUTRA from April 1966 to September 2006 with the exception of April 1972 to September 1989 and October 1995 to March 1996. This matter is on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from a February 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2021, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is in the evidence of record. After a thorough review of the record, the Board finds that more development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the claims on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for restless leg syndrome is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Veteran contends he is entitled to service connection for his restless leg syndrome due to his service-connected obstructive sleep apnea. In July 2021, he testified that his restless leg syndrome was diagnosed at the same time as his sleep apnea, in 1998, and he continued to experience symptoms since his diagnosis through to the present. He contends that his restless leg syndrome has been present concurrently with his service-connected sleep apnea. The record shows a January 1998 sleep study from Harton Regional Medical Center diagnosing the Veteran with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder. A January 2003 VA treatment record noted restless leg syndrome by history and treatment with a low dose of carbidopa/levodopa for years. A July 2003 VA treatment note indicated the Veteran's restless leg syndrome was treated with carbidopa/levodopa, which was prescribed by Doctor Lovelady, a neurologist in town. An April 2004 annual medical certificate showed restless leg syndrome was treated with carbidopa/levodopa, which was prescribed by Doctor Lovelady. The Veteran identified Keith Lovelady (MD) in his May 2008 application. However, a June 2008 VA memo indicated that the VA Form 21-4142 for Doctor Keith Lovelady was returned due to an incorrect social security number on the document. There is no indication the Veteran was notified of this issue and treatment records from Doctor Lovelady do not appear in the claims file. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The Veteran should be provided the opportunity to complete a VA Form 21-4142 to authorize the release of information from the medical providers he identifies. The issue of entitlement to TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for his restless leg syndrome being remanded. Harris v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Therefore, a determination on this issue should be deferred. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran a VA Form 21-4142. Request that he identify all relevant non-VA health care providers (including the name and address) who have treated him during the pendency of this appeal. If the Veteran identifies a private provider, make two requests for the authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. Obtain and associate any outstanding VA and non-VA treatment records with the claims file, to include those mentioned above. 2. After the above is complete, the AOJ is free to undertake any further development deemed necessary, to include obtaining additional opinions or examinations if deemed warranted as a consequence of new evidence received. 3. Thereafter, the issues on appeal should be reviewed with consideration of all applicable laws and regulations. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Byers 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.