Citation Nr: 21011948 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-26 894 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED The issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, as secondary to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1974 to December 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2019, the Board denied to reopen the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and the Court granted a July 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacated the July 2019 Board decision and remanded the issue to the Board for readjudication. The July 2020 JMR states, “[a]ppellant does not appeal the Board’s denial of entitlement to direct service connection for erectile dysfunction. Accordingly, the Board’s decision as to that issue should remain undisturbed, and the appeal with respect to that issue should be dismissed.” As such, the issue of entitlement to direct service connection is no longer on appeal, and the issue remaining on appeal is limited to whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to service-connected disability. The July 2019 Board decision remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD for further development. In a September 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the RO continued to deny the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service-connected for PTSD. In October 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher-Level Review, and requested that his claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD be adjudicated in the appeals modernization system. In a November 2020 correspondence, the RO granted the Veteran’s request and withdrew and discontinued the Veteran’s legacy appeal for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. As such, the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD will be adjudicated under the appeals modernization system and is not currently before the Board. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. The parties to the July 2020 JMR agreed that the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD may have a significant impact on the issue of whether new and material evidence had been submitted in support of the Veteran’s service connection claim for erectile dysfunction. Specifically, the Veteran reported that he believes the medication he takes for PTSD resulted in erectile dysfunction. As such, the parties to the July 2020 JMR agreed that the claim of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is inextricably intertwined with the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (the prohibition against the adjudication of claims that are inextricably intertwined is based upon the recognition that claims related to each other should not be subject to piecemeal decision-making or appellate litigation). As such, the Veteran’s claim for whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction must be remanded until the RO has adjudicated the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After issuing a rating decision relating to entitlement to service connection for PTSD, review the expanded record, including the evidence entered since the most recent statement of the case, and determine whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case. The appropriate period should be allowed for response before the appeal is returned to the Board. ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. G. LeMoine, 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.