Citation Nr: 21013518 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 19-07 957 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER For the period prior to June 18, 2014, the entitlement to an initial evaluation higher than 70 percent for mood disorder is denied. For the period from June 18, 2014, an initial evaluation of 70 percent, and no higher, for mood disorder is granted. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is granted for the period from January 29, 2013. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on statutory housebound status under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) is granted effective June 9, 2014. REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. The claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 29, 2013 for the award of service connection for mood disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the entire period on appeal, the Veteran’s mood disorder was productive of was productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. It was not manifested by total social impairment. 2. For the period from January 29, 2013, the Veteran’s service-connected mood disorder rendered him unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment. 3. In addition to TDIU based on his service-connected mood disorder alone, effective June 9, 2014, the Veteran has additional service-connected disabilities independently ratable as at least 60 percent disabling. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. For the period prior to June 18, 2014, the criteria for an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for mood disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130 Diagnostic Code 9433. 2. For the period from June 18, 2014, the criteria for an initial evaluation of 70 percent for mood disorder, and no higher, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130 Diagnostic Code 9433. 3. The criteria to establish TDIU for the period from January 29, 2013 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.340, 3.341, 4.1, 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19, 4.25. 4. For the period from June 9, 2014, the criteria to establish SMC at the statutory housebound rate have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114(s), 5103, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.350. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from August 1997 to August 2004. This appeal originates from the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, received by VA on January 29, 2013. The Board granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder in May 2018. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) effectuated the grant of service connection in a September 2018 rating decision, assigning a 70 percent evaluation prior to June 18, 2014 and a 10 percent evaluation thereafter. The Veteran disagreed with the assigned evaluation and the effective date of the award. During the pendency of this appeal, the issue of entitlement to TDIU was raised. In Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that a request for TDIU, whether expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, is not a separate “claim” for benefits, but rather, is part of a claim for increased compensation. Thus, under Rice, the Board has jurisdiction over the TDIU claim. The Board notes that additional evidence in the form of VA records were added to the claims file since the AOJ issued the November 2019 statement of the case in the appeal of the evaluation of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder. However, those records, dating from January 2020 to May 2020, contain no evidence relevant to the evaluation of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder. Thus, the Board has concluded that it may proceed with appellate consideration of this issue without prejudice to the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. Evaluation of Mood Disorder The Veteran is service connected for mood disorder, which is currently evaluated as 70 percent disabling for the period prior to June 18, 2014, and as 10 percent disabling from that date. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012). Percentage evaluations are determined by comparing the manifestations of a particular disorder with the requirements contained in the VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can practically be determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such disease or injury and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations which are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusion. If there is a question as to which evaluation to apply to the Veteran’s disability, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9433, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned for mood disorder where there is occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or where symptoms are controlled by continuous medication. A 30 percent evaluation is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). Id. 50 percent evaluation is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereo-typed speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent evaluation is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or work like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent evaluation is warranted when there is total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time and place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id. The “such symptoms as” language of the diagnostic codes for mental disorders in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 means “for example” and does not represent an exhaustive list of symptoms that must be found before granting the rating of that category. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). However, as the Court also pointed out in that case, “[w]without those examples, differentiating a 30% evaluation from a 50% evaluation would be extremely ambiguous.” Id. The Court went on to state that the list of examples “provides guidance as to the severity of symptoms contemplated for each rating.” Id. Accordingly, while each of the examples needs not be proven in any one case, the particular symptoms must be analyzed in light of those given examples. Put another way, the severity represented by those examples may not be ignored. In December 2013, H.H.G., Ph.D. completed a VA disability benefits questionnaire after assessment of the Veteran. She noted that she had reviewed the claims file and VA records, and that she had performed an examination. She diagnosed mood disorder secondary to medical condition. She concluded that the Veteran experienced occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, family relations, judgment, thinking, and/or mood. On examination, the Veteran reported that he primarily spent time with family and church friends. He indicated that, following service, his longest period of employment was in catering for one year, and that he last worked as a professional tutor in 2011. He related that he experienced daily depression symptoms secondary to chronic pain and limited use of his left shoulder due to in service injuries. Dr. G. identified symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, near continuous panic or depression, disturbances of motivation and mood, and suicidal ideation. The Veteran stated that he felt helpless about his left arm and was hopeless about it getting better so that he could work again. Mental status examination revealed normal attention and average concentration. Short term memory was good. Speech flow was normal. Thought content was appropriate and organization was goal directed. Judgment was normal. Mood was depressed and affect was constricted. The Veteran endorsed significant depressive thinking regarding his service-connected left shoulder disability and related pain. He endorsed suicidal and homicidal ideation without intent or plan. Dr. G. concluded that the Veteran could not sustain the stress from a competitive work environment and could not be expected to engage in gainful activity secondary to his severe level of impairment. In a January 2018 statement, the Veteran’s mother, L.J., indicated that following injuries in service, the Veteran never completely recovered physically. She noted that his physical limitations were difficult for him and that he did the best he could, but that he was sometimes withdrawn more than usual. She indicated that he suffered from depression that was sometimes more severe depending on how his limitations affected him from day to day. She observed that he was impatient and that his mood and motivation were low. She indicated that his injuries had affected him mentally and emotionally. In March 2018, Dr. G. indicated that she had reviewed the updated claims file, to include the statement by the Veteran’s mother. She noted that it was highly likely that the Veteran’s mother had accurately described the current level of the Veteran’s functioning. She indicated that such was consistent with her previous interview and test results. She concluded that, following review of all of the materials, she stood by her original report and conclusions. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Board concludes that for the entire appellate period, the Veteran’s psychiatric symptoms more closely approximate the criteria for an evaluation of 70 percent. In this regard, while he endorsed suicidal and homicidal ideation in 2013, he denied intent or plan. At that time, Dr. G. determined that the Veteran experienced occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, family relations, judgment, thinking, and/or mood. She identified symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, near continuous panic or depression, disturbances of motivation and mood, and suicidal ideation. The Veteran expressed feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, as well as depressive thinking. Dr. G. concluded that the Veteran could not sustain the stress from a competitive work environment and could not be expected to engage in gainful activity secondary to his severe level of impairment. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. G. conducted a complete clinical interview and psychometric testing, and carefully reviewed the record. Thus, the Board finds that an evaluation of 70 percent is appropriate for the entire period on appeal. The Board also concludes that an evaluation higher than 70 percent is not for application. While the Board accepts that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder affects his social and occupational functioning, the objective evidence of record does not demonstrate total occupational and social impairment. The Veteran has been shown to be fully oriented, with no formal thought disorder. There has been no demonstration of grossly inappropriate behavior or persistent danger to himself or others. More importantly, the Veteran indicated he interacts socially with family and church friends. Thus, it cannot be said that the evidence as a whole for the appellate period reflects occupational and social impairment of the severity contemplated by the criteria for a 100 percent evaluation. In summary, the overall disability picture during the appellate period indicates that a 70 percent evaluation, but no higher, is appropriate. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). TDIU and SMC The Board observes that during the pendency of the instant appeal, rating determinations were made affecting the Veteran’s combined evaluation for compensation. As these combined evaluations for compensation impact whether the Veteran meets the criteria for TDIU and SMC, the Board will set forth the Veteran’s various combined evaluations. As noted, this appeal stems from the Veteran’s January 29, 2013 claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. A September 2018 rating decision carried out the Board’s May 2018 grant of service connection. The AOJ assigned a 70 percent evaluation effective January 29, 2013, and a 10 percent evaluation effective June 18, 2014. As discussed above, the Board has determined that an evaluation of 70 percent, but no higher, is warranted for the entire period of the appeal. Thus, from January 29, 2013, the Veteran was in receipt of the 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for left arm peripheral neuropathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for scars. His combined evaluation for compensation was 90 percent. A temporary total evaluation for the Veteran’s left shoulder disability was assigned effective October 24, 2013. The evaluation of his other service-connected disabilities remained unchanged. Thus, he was also in receipt of the 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for left arm peripheral neuropathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for scars. At the expiration of the Veteran’s temporary total evaluation on February 1, 2014, the evaluation of his left shoulder disability returned to 20 percent. In addition, he was in receipt of a 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 10 percent evaluation for left arm peripheral neuropathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for scars. His combined evaluation for compensation was 90 percent. In July 2014, the AOJ granted service connection for radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities, based on partial paralysis of the sciatic nerves. An evaluation of 10 percent per lower extremity was assigned, effective June 9, 2014. Thus, from June 9, 2014, the Veteran was in receipt of a 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for left arm peripheral neuropathy, a 10 percent evaluation for scars, a 10 percent evaluation for left lower extremity radiculopathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for right lower extremity radiculopathy. His combined evaluation for compensation was 90 percent. In October 2015, the AOJ awarded a temporary total evaluation for the Veteran’s left shoulder disability and recharacterized the disability as left shoulder total arthroplasty. It assigned an effective date of September 1, 2015 for the temporary total evaluation. Upon the expiration of the temporary total evaluation on November 1, 2016, the AOJ assigned a 20 percent evaluation. Thus, from the expiration of the temporary total evaluation in November 2016, the Veteran was in receipt of a 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for left arm peripheral neuropathy, a 10 percent evaluation for scars, a 10 percent evaluation for left lower extremity radiculopathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for right lower extremity radiculopathy. His combined evaluation for compensation was 90 percent. In September 2018, in addition to carrying out the award of service connection for mood disorder, the AOJ granted service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity with partial paralysis of the median, radial, ulnar, musculocutaneous, circumflex, and long thoracic nerves and assigned an evaluation of 30 percent, effective July 24, 2018. It clarified that this higher evaluation was based on evidence showing worsening of the ulnar nerve left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy. The evaluation of left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy remained 10 percent from February 2, 2010 to July 23, 2018. The AOJ also indicated that SMC based on statutory housebound criteria was awarded from October 24, 2013 to January 31, 2014 (the period during which the Veteran was assigned a temporary total evaluation). Thus, from February 2, 2010 to October 23, 2013, the Veteran was in receipt of a 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for left arm peripheral neuropathy, a 10 percent evaluation for scars, a 10 percent evaluation for left lower extremity radiculopathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for right lower extremity radiculopathy. His combined evaluation for compensation was 90 percent. Additionally, based on the September 2018 rating decision, from July 24, 2018, the Veteran was in receipt of a 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 30 percent evaluation for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity with partial paralysis of the median, radial, ulnar, musculocutaneous, circumflex, and long thoracic nerves, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for scars, a 10 percent evaluation for left lower extremity radiculopathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for right lower extremity radiculopathy. His combined evaluation for compensation was 90 percent. In February 2019, the AOJ increased the evaluation of the Veteran’s left shoulder scars to 10 percent, effective February 1, 2018. His combined evaluation for compensation remained 90 percent. Subsequently in February 2019, the AOJ effectuated the Board’s award of a 50 percent evaluation for left shoulder total arthroplasty, effective November 1, 2016 (date following expiration of the temporary total evaluation). Thus, from November 1, 2016, the Veteran was in receipt of a 70 percent evaluation for mood disorder, a 50 percent evaluation for left shoulder total arthroplasty, a 30 percent evaluation for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity with partial paralysis of the median, radial, ulnar, musculocutaneous, circumflex, and long thoracic nerves, a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for scars, a 10 percent evaluation for left lower extremity radiculopathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for right lower extremity radiculopathy. His total evaluation for compensation was 100 percent. In July 2019, the AOJ granted service connection for right leg radiculopathy with a 10 percent evaluation for partial paralysis of the femoral nerve and a noncompensable evaluation for the external cutaneous nerve, and for left leg radiculopathy with a 10 percent evaluation for partial paralysis of the femoral nerve and a noncompensable evaluation for the external cutaneous nerve. It assigned an effective date of November 1, 2018 for these awards. The AOJ also continued 10 percent evaluations for bilateral leg radiculopathy with partial paralysis of the popliteal nerves. The Veteran’s total evaluation for compensation remained 100 percent. TDIU As discussed, this appeal originates from the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, received by VA on January 29, 2013. Service connection was ultimately granted, and the AOJ assigned an effective date consistent with the date of receipt of the Veteran’s claim. The issue of entitlement to TDIU was raised during the pendency of the instant appeal. Total disability will be considered to exist when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340. If the total rating is based on a disability or combination of disabilities for which the Schedule for Rating Disabilities provides an evaluation of less than 100 percent, it must be determined that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age. 38 C.F.R. § 3.341. In evaluating total disability, full consideration must be given to unusual physical or mental effects in individual cases, to peculiar effects of occupational activities, to defects in physical or mental endowment preventing the usual amount of success in overcoming the handicap of disability and to the effects of combinations of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.15. If the schedular rating is less than total, a total disability evaluation may be assigned based on individual unemployability if a Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disability, provided that he has one service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or higher; or two or more service-connected disabilities, with one disability rated at 40 percent or higher and the combined rating is 70 percent or higher. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). As the Veteran’s mood disorder is evaluated as 70 percent disabling, he meets the objective criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 for consideration of TDIU from the effective date of service connection from January 29, 2013. Moreover, the Board concludes that TDIU is warranted in this case. In this regard, Dr. G. reviewed the record and conducted an in-depth psychological assessment of the Veteran. She concluded that the Veteran could not sustain the stress from a competitive work environment and could not be expected to engage in gainful activity secondary to his severe level of impairment. As such, entitlement to TDIU is warranted. SMC VA has a ‘well-established’ duty to maximize a claimant’s benefits. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011); AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993); see also Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). This duty to maximize benefits requires VA to assess all of a claimant’s disabilities to determine whether any combination of disabilities establishes entitlement to SMC pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1114. See Bradley, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008). SMC is payable at the housebound rate where the Veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent and, in addition: (1) has service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability, and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems, or (2) is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i). For the purpose of meeting the first criterion, a rating of 100 percent may be based on any of the following grants of total disability: on a schedular basis, on an extraschedular basis, or on the basis of a temporary total rating pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.28 (pre-stabilization rating), 4.29 (temporary total hospital rating) or, 4.30 (temporary total convalescence rating). Subsection 1114(s) requires that a disabled Veteran whose disability level is determined by the ratings schedule must have at least one disability that is rated at 100 percent in order to qualify for the special monthly compensation provided by that statute. Under the law, subsection 1114(s) benefits are not available to a Veteran whose 100 percent disability rating is based on multiple disabilities, none of which is rated at 100 percent disabling. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that although TDIU may satisfy the “rated as total” element of section 1114(s), TDIU based on multiple underlying disabilities cannot satisfy the section 1114(s) requirement of “a service-connected disability” because that requirement must be met by a single disability. Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2010). In this case, Dr. G. stated in December 2013 that the Veteran could not sustain the stress from a competitive work environment and could not be expected to engage in gainful activity secondary to his severe level of impairment. Thus, the record establishes that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder alone rendered him unemployable, and the award of TDIU based on the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder alone satisfies the “rated as total” element of subsection 1114(s). For the period from January 29, 2013 (the effective date of service connection for the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder) to October 23, 2013 (the date prior to the assignment of a temporary total evaluation for convalescence), the Veteran did not have service connected disabilities in addition to his psychiatric disorder that combined to an evaluation of at least 60 percent. Specifically, the combined evaluation for his service-connected left shoulder disability, low back disability, left arm peripheral neuropathy, and scars was 50 percent. Thus, for this period, the criteria for SMC at the statutory housebound rate are not met. As discussed, the AOJ awarded SMC based on statutory housebound criteria from October 24, 2013 to January 31, 2014 (the period during which the Veteran was assigned a temporary total evaluation). Accordingly, the Board need not discuss this period. For the period from February 1, 2014 (the date following expiration of the total evaluation for convalescence) to June 8, 2014 (the day prior to the effective date of the award of service connection for radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities based on partial paralysis of the sciatic nerves), the Veteran did not have service connected disabilities in addition to his psychiatric disorder that combined to an evaluation of at least 60 percent. Specifically, the combined evaluation for his service-connected left shoulder disability, low back disability, left arm peripheral neuropathy, and scars was 50 percent. Thus, for this period, the criteria for SMC at the statutory housebound rate are not met. For the period beginning June 9, 2014, the Veteran had disabilities in addition to his psychiatric disorder whose combined evaluation was 60 percent. Specifically, he was in receipt of a 20 percent evaluation for a lumbar spine disability, a 20 percent evaluation for a left shoulder disability, a 10 percent evaluation for left arm peripheral neuropathy, a 10 percent evaluation for scars, a 10 percent evaluation for left lower extremity radiculopathy, and a 10 percent evaluation for right lower extremity radiculopathy. Accordingly, from June 9, 2014, the award of SMC at the statutory housebound rate is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Service connection for a right knee disability The Veteran maintains that his right knee disability is related to his service-connected right lower extremity lumbar spine radiculopathy. Service connection may be granted for disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. This includes any increase in disability (aggravation) that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. A VA examination was conducted in September 2017. While the examiner provided an opinion regarding whether claimed right knee disability was caused by the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy, he did not opine as to whether the claimed right knee disability had been aggravated by right lower extremity radiculopathy. An additional examination must be conducted to address this question. Effective date for award of service connection for mood disorder In his October 2018 notice of disagreement, the Veteran disagreed with the effective date for the grant of service connection. The filing of a NOD places a claim in appellate status. Therefore, a statement of the case regarding this issue must be provided to the appellant. As such, this issue must be remanded. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 239, 240-41 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his right knee disability. The claims file must be made available to the examiner. All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. Following review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion with respect to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s right knee disability was caused or aggravated (worsened beyond normal progression) by the Veteran’s service-connected right lower extremity radiculopathy. In rendering this opinion, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. The complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 2. Issue the Veteran a statement of the case on the issue of entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 29, 2013 for the award of service connection for mood disorder pursuant. If the Veteran perfects his appeal by submitting a timely and adequate substantive appeal, the AOJ should return the claim or claims to the Board for appellate disposition. (Continued on the next page)   3. Readjudicate the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an appropriate period within which to respond thereto. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.