Citation Nr: 21009202 Decision Date: 02/19/21 Archive Date: 02/19/21 DOCKET NO. 15-25 325 DATE: February 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected residuals of a right hip dislocation is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected internal hemorrhoids is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected radiculopathy with meralgia paresthetica of the right lower extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition, to include as secondary to service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine at L5-S1, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from August 1982 to May 1984. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition, a right knee condition, a disability manifested by fecal incontinence, irritable bowel syndrome, a disability manifested by urinary incontinence, left upper extremity neuropathy, and right upper extremity neuropathy, as well as a rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a right hip dislocation, a rating in excess of 10 percent for internal hemorrhoids, a rating in excess of 10 percent for GERD, and a rating in excess of 20 percent for radiculopathy with meralgia paresthetica of the right lower extremity. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision, in part, to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) with regard to the issues remanded herein. The parties requested the Court dismiss the appeal for the remaining issues of service connection for a left knee condition, fecal and urinary incontinence, irritable bowel syndrome, and bilateral upper extremities neuropathy. In June 2019, the Court issued an Order granting a Joint Motion for Partial Remand by the parties, vacating the decision with respect to the remaining issues of rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a right hip dislocation, a rating in excess of 10 percent for internal hemorrhoids, a rating in excess of 10 percent for GERD, a rating in excess of 20 percent for radiculopathy with meralgia paresthetica of the right lower extremity, and service connection for a right knee condition and remanding the matter to the Board for further action. This case was last before the Board in March 2020, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denials and returned the case to the Board. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected residuals of a right hip dislocation is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected internal hemorrhoids is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected GERD is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected radiculopathy with meralgia paresthetica of the right lower extremity is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition, to include as secondary to service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine at L5-S1, is remanded. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims and to afford her every possible consideration. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held “that a remand by this Court or the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand orders.” Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As such, compliance with the terms of the remand is necessary prior to further appellate review, and if not, “the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance.” Id. In its March 2020 remand, the Board directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to “[a]sk the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any outstanding treatment records relevant to the issues on appeal. Make two requests for the authorized records from any physicians and/or facilities identified by the Veteran, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile.” In August 2020, the Veteran submitted a completed VA Form 21-4142 which reflected that she had received private treatment at Rock Spring CBOC Healthcare and Lander Valley Family Practice. Records from Rock Spring CBOC were found to be non-private, VA treatment records and were associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Records from Lander Valley Family Practice have not yet been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. Although, the AOJ made a request for the records from the facility and the Veteran in December 2020, two requests from the facility, as directed by the March 2020 remand, have not yet been made. As such, remand is required for compliance with the terms of the March 2020 remand. Additionally, a remand is necessary in order to obtain outstanding Social Security Administration (SSA) records. In this regard, the a March 2020 inquiry reflects that she was receiving disability benefits through the SSA. Currently, the claims file does not contain any SSA disability determination or clinical records used to support such an award. As the SSA’s decision and the records upon which the agency based its determination may be relevant to VA’s adjudication of her pending claims, VA is obliged to attempt to obtain and consider those records. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(3) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2018). As such, a remand is necessary in order to obtain all medical records relied upon concerning the Veteran’s claim for SSA benefits. See Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363, 369-70 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. Assist the Veteran in obtaining the records from Lander Valley Family Practice, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Any new or additional (i.e., non-duplicative) evidence received should be associated with the record. Make two requests for the authorized records from Lander Valley Family Practice, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. If any of the records sought are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect that fact, and the Veteran should be notified. 3. Contact the SSA and request the Veteran’s complete SSA records, including any administrative decision(s) on his application for disability benefits and all underlying medical records which are in the SSA’s possession. A copy of any request(s) sent to the SSA, and any reply, to include any records obtained from the SSA, must be included in the claims file. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile and allowed the opportunity to provide such records. (Continued on the next page)   4. Thereafter, the AOJ must review the claims file to ensure that the foregoing requested development has been completed and is in compliance with the directives of this remand and if not, implement corrective procedures. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 5. After the above development, complete any other development warranted by the newly obtained evidence (if any) and readjudicate the issues on appeal. Shereen M. Marcus Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Gandhi, 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.