Citation Nr: 21006147 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 10-09 544 DATE: February 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to medication for service-connected psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis disabilities, is remanded. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than October 14, 2008, for the assignment of a 10 percent evaluation for psoriasis, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for psoriasis prior to November 14, 2013, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for psoriasis on or after November 14, 2013, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1980 to March 1988 and from November 1988 to November 1993. He also had subsequent service in the United States Navy Reserve. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from February 2009 and July 2014 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In the February 2009 rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) increased the evaluation for the service-connected psoriasis to 10 percent, effective from the date of the claim. In a January 2015 rating decision, the AOJ increased the evaluation for the service-connected psoriasis to 30 percent, effective from November 14, 2013. Because that evaluation does not represent the highest possible benefit, the issue is in appellate status and has been recharacterized as stated above. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). In May 2016, the Board remanded the case to schedule the Veteran for a Board hearing. The requested hearing was later held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2016. A transcript of the hearing associated with the claims file. The Board remanded the case in July 2017 for further development. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. While the case was in remand status, the AOJ granted service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in a May 2019 rating decision, which represents a full grant of that issue in the appeal. Therefore, the issue of entitlement to service connection for GERD is no longer on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that a separate notice of disagreement must be filed to initiate appellate review of “downstream” elements such as the disability rating or effective date assigned). On review, the Board finds that additional development is necessary prior to final adjudication of the Veteran’s claims. Specifically, it appears that there may be outstanding treatment records, as detailed in the directives below. Moreover, in a December 2019 letter, the Board notified the Veteran that he had the right to request that the AOJ review additional evidence added to the claims file after the May 2019 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The Board explained that, if the Veteran did not respond in 45 days from the date of the letter, it would assume that he did not wish to have the Board decide his appeal at that time, and the case would be remanded to the AOJ for review of the evidence. He was also advised that he may waive the AOJ’s initial consideration of the evidence. The Veteran requested that the Board send his case back to the AOJ for review of the additional evidence in a written response the following month, and he did not respond to June 2020 and September 2020 Board letters with the same information and instructions. Therefore, a remand is necessary to have the AOJ review the additional evidence in connection with the appeal to ensure due process. The case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The AOJ should secure any outstanding treatment records that were scanned into the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) Tools/Vista Imaging database. See, e.g., February 2019 VA treatment records from Central Alabama Health Care System (noted scanning of non-VA medical records; Veteran has history of non-VA treatment for his psoriasis through Veterans Choice Program). 2. After completing the above action, the AOJ should conduct any other indicated development. Further development may include providing a VA examination or obtaining another VA medical opinion after receipt of any additional evidence. 3. The case should then be readjudicated by the AOJ on the basis of additional evidence, including all evidence received since the May 2019 SSOC. The AOJ should also consider the 2018 amendments to the rating criteria for evaluating skin disabilities. See December 2019 Board letter (requested Veteran provide waiver of initial AOJ review of additional evidence in connection with appeal; Veteran requested return of case for initial AOJ review on response form following month). If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and any representative should be furnished an SSOC and be afforded an opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Postek, 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.