Citation Nr: 21023963 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 19-03 589 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for cervical strain, degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine (cervical spine disability) for the period prior to March 3, 2020, is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for cervical spine disability from March 3, 2020 on, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service with the Army from February 1979 to February 1982 and June 1992 to May 1993. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a May 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2019, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is in the evidence of record. The Board notes a March 2020 rating decision issued a partial grant of the Veteran’s appeal. The Veteran’s cervical spine disability evaluation was increased to 20 percent effective March 3, 2020. As this increase did not constitute a full grant of the benefit sought for the entire appeal period, the Veteran's claim for a higher evaluation remains in appellate status. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38-39 (1993). As such, the issues on appeal before the Board are for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected cervical spine disability from February 15, 2017 to March 2, 2020, and an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for his service-connected cervical spine disability since March 3, 2020. The Veteran executed a VA 21-4142 authorizing the release of records from Fit for Life Physical Therapy. Records were received from Fit for Life regarding his initial physical therapy evaluation for neck pain in January 2020. The document indicated he would participate in eight sessions. However, no other records from this provider were associated with the claims file. Therefore, on remand the RO should attempt to obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The Veteran should be provided the opportunity to complete a VA Form 21-4142 to authorize the release of information from the private medical providers he identifies. Furthermore, the Board notes that since the issuance of the March 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), additional pertinent evidence was received without a waiver of Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) review. Updated VA treatment records were received in March, May, August, September, and December of 2020. Under 38 C.F.R. § 19.31, the AOJ should provide an SSOC to the Veteran and his representative when there are any material changes in or additions to the information included in the SOC or any prior SSOC, to include receipt of additional pertinent evidence. In the present case, the AOJ did not issue another SSOC following the receipt of updated treatment records. After the completion of the other development discussed above, the AOJ should review the claim on appeal and issue an SSOC. 38 §§ C.F.R. 19.31, 19.37, 20.1304. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran a VA Form 21-4142. Request that he identify all non-VA healthcare providers (including the name and address) who have treated him during the pendency of this appeal. If the Veteran identifies a private provider, make two requests for the authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. Obtain and associate any outstanding VA and non-VA treatment records with the claims file. 2. After completion of the above and any additional development deemed necessary, the issue on appeal should be reviewed with consideration of all applicable laws and regulations. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a SSOC and afforded the opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Byers 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.