Citation Nr: 21008916 Decision Date: 02/18/21 Archive Date: 02/18/21 DOCKET NO. 10-47 149 DATE: February 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for neuropathy of the left lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for chronic tendonitis of the right groin is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from December 1980 to December 1983 as a medical laboratory specialist. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a January 2009 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board video conference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2017. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. Previously, the claims were before the Board in November 2017 and were remanded for additional development. As discussed below, the Board’s prior remand directives have not been substantially complied with, and as such the case is again before the Board and additional development is warranted. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for neuropathy of the left lower extremity 2. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for chronic tendonitis of the right groin 3. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for a left ankle disability 4. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) The Veteran contends that an increased rating is warranted for her service connected left lower extremity neuropathy, chronic tendonitis of the right groin and left ankle disability. In addition, the Veteran contends a TDIU is warranted based on her service connected disabilities. Previously, the claims were before the Board in November 2017 and were remanded for additional development. In Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the Board’s remand order. Moreover, the Court has held that the Board itself errs when it fails to ensure compliance with the terms of its remand. Although on remand the RO obtained updated VA examinations, the RO failed to obtain any outstanding updated treatment records. Evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. During the May 2017 hearing the Veteran reported ongoing VA treatment for the disabilities on appeal. Further, the Veteran’s representative contends there are relevant outstanding treatment records. Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession and are considered potentially relevant to the issues on appeal. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them. Further, during the May 2017 hearing, the Veteran identified relevant outstanding private treatment records. In addition, in December 2020 correspondence the Veteran’s representative highlighted outstanding relevant treatment records. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain authorization and request these private treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from December 2008 forward. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any outstanding private treatment records including from Dr. Sultan. Make two requests for the authorized records from any identified and authorized for release private treatment records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.R. Kardian, 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.