Citation Nr: 21020764 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 09-36 577 DATE: April 8, 2021 REMANDED The appeal for an initial compensable disability rating for tinea pedis and onychomycosis of both feet is remanded. The appeal for an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent prior to August 21, 2014; in excess of 30 percent prior to July 26, 2018; in excess of 80 percent prior to October 1, 2020; and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for diabetic retinopathy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty with the United States Army from March 1968 to October 1969. He had overseas service in Vietnam and is a recipient of the Purple Heart Medal, among other decorations and awards. The matters on appeal arise from October 2006 and December 2006 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The appeal has a lengthy procedural history that is outlined in the Board’s June 2020 decision. In July 2011, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. They were most recently before the Board in June 2020. The matters have since been returned to the Board for appellate consideration. Regrettably, for the reasons discussed below, another remand is necessary. The Board notes that in an August 2020 letter, the Veteran contended that the effective date of service connection for the disabilities on appeal should date back to 1995. The Veteran did not express disagreement with the assigned effective dates in his February 2007 notice of disagreement (NOD) to the October 2006 and December 2006 rating decisions that awarded service connection. The Board will not address entitlement to earlier effective dates for the award of service connection for the disabilities on appeal in this decision, but the Veteran is invited to submit a new claim with the Agency of Original Jurisdiction using the correct form if he intends to pursue the issues. 1. The appeal for an initial compensable disability rating for tinea pedis and onychomycosis of both feet is remanded. 2. The appeal for an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent prior to August 21, 2014; in excess of 30 percent prior to July 26, 2018; in excess of 80 percent prior to October 1, 2020; and in excess of 60 percent thereafter for diabetic retinopathy is remanded. The record shows that the Veteran receives care for his feet and eyes primarily through private practitioners. The Veteran has provided authorization to obtain records from various private providers, and VA has made attempts to obtain those records. However, in an August 2020 letter, the Veteran repeatedly indicated that VA had not obtained complete records from the identified providers. Specifically, he contended that records obtained from Dr. Garbowitz, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Mirsky were incomplete. In this regard, the Board notes that the record indicates VA obtained records from Dr. Steinberg, but only records from 2019-2020, as an accompanying note says: “Patient has been coming to office since 2016. Too many pgs to print. Attached are 2019-2020 med records.” Records obtained from Dr. Mirsky consist of a single treatment record. Based on the Veteran’s contentions and evidence suggesting the private treatment records are incomplete, the Board finds that remand is warranted to attempt to obtain the Veteran’s complete private medical treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to obtain complete medical treatment records from Dr. Garbowitz, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Mirsky. Follow up with the Veteran if additional authorization or information (dates of treatment, etc.) is needed to secure the records. Ensure each practitioner understands they are to provide COMPLETE records from the dates of treatment identified by the Veteran. Make two requests for the authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. All attempts to obtain such records should be documented in the claims file. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. T. Raftery, 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.