Citation Nr: 21007476 Decision Date: 02/09/21 Archive Date: 02/09/21 DOCKET NO. 05-25 586 DATE: February 9, 2021 ORDER The appeal as to entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability, is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to service connection for a back disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability, is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability, is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability, is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to service connection for a dental disability, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD, is dismissed. The appeal as to whether new or material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for hypothyroidism is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left heel spur is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based on limitation of flexion prior to March 23, 2010 is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based upon instability prior to March 23, 2010 is dismissed. The appeal as to entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for a total left knee replacement from May 1, 2011 is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In February 2021 written, signed correspondence, received by VA prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran, through her authorized representative, that a withdrawal of the appeal was requested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement service connection for a right shoulder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement service connection for a back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement service connection for a left hip disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 4. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement service connection for a right knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 5. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement service connection for a hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 6. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement service connection for a dental disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55 7. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to whether new or material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for hypothyroidism have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 8. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left heel spur have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 9. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based on limitation of flexion prior to March 23, 2010 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 10. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based upon instability prior to March 23, 2010 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 11. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal as to entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for a total left knee replacement from May 1, 2011 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from November 1974 to May 1978 and from March 1991 to July 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of August 2004 (hypothyroidism, a dental disability, and hypertension), January 2005 (back disability, left hip disability, right knee disability, and right shoulder disability) and September 2005 rating decision (increased ratings for the left knee and left heel spur) issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). During the pendency of the claims for increased ratings for Veteran’s left knee disability based on limitation of flexion and instability, an April 2010 rating decision recharacterized the Veteran’s left knee disabilities to reflect she had a total left knee replacement and changed the Diagnostic Codes under which the Veteran’s left knee disabilities were rated from Diagnostic Code 5010-5260 and 5257, for limitation of flexion, and recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, respectively, to Diagnostic Code 5055 for knee replacement (prosthesis). See Read v. Shinseki, 651 F. 3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The April 2010 rating decision also granted a 100 percent evaluation for the Veteran’s post total arthroplasty of the right knee from March 23, 2010 to April 30, 2011 and assigned an evaluation of 30 percent effective May 1, 2011. In May 2008, the Veteran testified at a local hearing before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, a back disability, a left hip disability, a right knee, hypertension, a dental disability, and the issue of whether new or material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for hypothyroidism. A transcript of that hearing is of record. In her October 2011 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which perfected the issues of increased ratings for the left knee disabilities and left heel spur, the Veteran’s authorized representative requested a Board hearing. This hearing was scheduled for February 8, 2021. However, in February 2, 2021 correspondence, the Veteran’s authorized representative withdrew the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.702 (e). Accordingly, the hearing request is withdrawn. These matters were previously before the Board in June 2010 and February 2016. In June 2010, the Board accepted jurisdiction of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability, which was addressed in the May 2008 DRO hearing and was included in a May 2008 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), although no statement of the case (SOC) was issued, and remanded the claim for further development. Additionally, in June 2010, the Board implicitly reopened entitlement to entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability and remanded the claim on the merits. In June 2010, the Board, in pertinent part, also remanded the claims for entitlement to service connection a right shoulder disability, a back disability, a right knee, hypertension, as well as the claim reopen a claim for service connection for hypothyroidism, for further development. The Board, in June 2010, also remanded the claims for increased ratings for the Veteran’s left knee disabilities and left heel spur for issuance of an SOC. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). In February 2016, the issues herein were again before the Board when they were remanded in order for the Veteran to be afforded her requested Board hearing. As a final initial matter, additional evidence consisting of a July 2015 foot conditions disability benefits questionnaire was associated with the record prior to the July 2015 SOC issued for an increased rating for the left knee and an August 2011 SSOC issued for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, a back disability, a left hip disability, a right knee, hypertension, a dental disability, and whether new or material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for hypothyroidism. However, it was received prior to an August 2015 SSOC issued for an increased rating for left heel spur. This evidence is only relevant to the issue of an increased rating for left heel spur. Moreover, no further action is required as to this matter, or any other due process deficiency, if such exists, given that these matters are being dismissed at the Veteran’s authorized representative’s request. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include as secondary service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left heel spur and/or left knee disability 5. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD 6. Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability, to include as secondary to service-connected PTSD 7. Whether new or material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for hypothyroidism 8. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left heel spur 9. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based on limitation of flexion prior to March 23, 2010   10. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based upon instability prior to March 23, 2010 11. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for a total left knee replacement from May 1, 2011 The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. The written withdrawal must include the name of the Veteran, the applicable VA file number, and a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. See Hembree v. Wilkie, 2020 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1677 (August 31, 2020). In February 2021 written, signed correspondence, which listed the Veteran’s name and applicable VA file number, the Veteran’s authorized representative withdrew the Veteran’s appeal as to the issues herein, requesting, in part, “to cancel the appeal as the Veteran is satisfied with her current P&T rating since 2011.” The Board finds that such statement satisfies the requirements for a written withdrawal as to these issues. As a result, there remain no allegations of error of fact or law for appellate consideration with regard to these issues. Accordingly, they are therefore dismissed. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Espinoza, 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.