Citation Nr: 21009817 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 15-43 246 DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1964 to September 1967. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts. This matter was previously before the Board in June 2020, when the claims were reopened and remanded for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. A June 2020 Social Security Administration Inquiry results sheet indicates that there may be outstanding and relevant Social Security Administration records. In this regard, the inquiry result indicates that the Veteran’s disability onset was in October 2004, and that he has been in receipt of disability payments. A remand is required to allow VA to request these records. In addition, the Board notes that a June 2020 Board decision remanded the claims herein for further development, to include VA examinations. However, despite multiple attempts to contact the Veteran, the Veteran did not show up for the scheduled examinations. Of record are multiple returned mail items, including the SSOC of October 2020. In a November 2020 correspondence, the Veteran’s representative advised in writing that the Veteran did not receive the SSOC, and that the address on file is incorrect. A CLEAR search revealed a possible address, and his representative advised to contact him directly with any questions. The Board further notes that although VA has a duty to assist claimants in the development of claims, the duty is not “a one-way street.” Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991), aff’d on reconsideration, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991). The Veteran must cooperate with examination and records requests. Further, the Veteran is reminded that he must notify VA of any address changes. Absent evidence that the claimant notified VA of a change of address and absent evidence that any notice sent to the claimant at his last known address has been returned as undeliverable, VA is entitled to rely on that address. See Cross v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 18, 19 (1996). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take reasonable measures to attempt to verify the Veteran’s current address, to include communicating with the Veteran’s representative concerning his whereabouts. 2. Obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records, and associate them with the claims file. 3. Obtain the Veteran’s federal records from the Social Security Administration. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 4. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible) to consider the onset and/or etiology of any low back, right knee, left knee, or left ankle impairment. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner(s) should opine as to whether the Veteran’s claimed low back, left ankle and bilateral knee disabilities at least as likely as not had their onset during active service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. VA medical opinions must include a complete rationale for the conclusions reached. The medical opinions must support the conclusions reached with an analysis that is adequate for the Board to consider and weigh against other evidence of record; medical opinions must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the clinician so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.