Citation Nr: 21009611 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 06-25 163 DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation for arteriosclerotic heart disease in excess of 10 percent disabling on or after June 1, 2004, and in excess of 30 percent disabling on or after May 19, 2015 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1974 to May 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2005 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The April 2005 rating decision granted service connection for arteriosclerotic heart disease with a noncompensable rating. The Veteran appealed, and in a June 2006 rating decision was granted a 10 percent rating from the day after his discharge from the military. In September 2016, the RO again increased the Veteran’s rating to 30 percent effective May 19, 2015, the date of the VA examination that made findings to support an increased rating. This matter was last remanded in March 2017 Board decision. The basis of the remand was the Veteran’s assertion that his condition worsened since the May 2015 VA examination. Therefore, the Board directed that the Veteran be provided with a new VA examination. Though the Veteran was provided a new VA examination in November 2019, this matter must once again be remanded for the foregoing reasons. Entitlement to an evaluation for arteriosclerotic heart disease in excess of 10 percent disabling on or after June 1, 2004, and in excess of 30 percent disabling on or after May 19, 2015 is remanded. Through correspondence, the Veteran has asserted that he is satisfied with his current rating of 30 percent for arteriosclerotic heart disease (CAD), however he believes that his effective date for the 30 percent rating should date back to September 30, 2009, the date of the first remand of this claim. See Correspondence received 10/25/2019. As a point of clarification, since this is an appeal of the initial rating decision that granted service connection, the entire period is on appeal because it has thus far not been subject to a final decision and has been continuously pursued. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). That said, the Board has a duty to consider staged rating where applicable, when the evidence establishes that the disability has manifested with symptoms that would warrant different ratings for distinct time periods. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007). Here, the Board finds that another remand is warranted since the Veteran’s translated records from Germany were associated with the file in February 2020, after the VA examination in November 2019. A review of the treatment records shows clinical findings from September 2008, October 2009, and July 2010. See Translation Related received 2/24/2020. These records are relevant to the contested periods on appeal. Since the records would require an evaluation from a medical expert to assess the severity of his CAD at those periods, the Board must remand this matter for an addendum medical opinion. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991) (holding that the rating board cannot substitute its own medical judgment for that of medical professionals). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the newly associated translated medical records from the Veteran’s physician, Dr. R.M received 2/24/2020. The examiner is asked to review the records and state an opinion of the level of severity of the Veteran’s CAD from September 2008 to May 2015 based on the available competent lay and medical evidence. Please support you answer with a comprehensive rationale. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Dixon, Associate 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.