Citation Nr: 21024807 Decision Date: 04/26/21 Archive Date: 04/26/21 DOCKET NO. 18-03 692 DATE: April 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left shoulder rotator cuff tendonitis (claimed as bursitis) is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on aid and attendance/housebound status for the Veteran's spouse is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1958 to January1962. These matters initially came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision. The Veteran requested a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge on his January 2018 substantive appeal (VA Form 9). He withdrew his Board hearing request in December 2018. The Board remanded these matters in January 2019, June 2020, and November 2020 for further development. The Board notes that the appeal is advanced on the docket due to the Veteran’s advanced age pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902 (c). 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left shoulder rotator cuff tendonitis (claimed as bursitis) is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. 3. Entitlement to SMC based on aid and attendance/housebound status for the Veteran's spouse is remanded. In January 2020, the Veteran’s representative renewed his request for a Decision Review Officer (DRO) hearing on all issues on appeal (originally requested in November 2015). In September 2020 email correspondence, he clarified that he now desired an informal conference, not a formal hearing, at a VA regional office on account of the closure of the RO during the pandemic. However, that hearing was not scheduled, and the Veteran through his attorney, renewed his request for a DRO hearing, in January 2021. The Veteran’s attorney advised that the Veteran would appear at the Nashville RO in person, and that he, the representative, would appear by teleconference. Therefore, it appears that a request for a DRO hearing remains outstanding. Upon request, a claimant is entitled to a hearing at any time on any issue involved in a claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (c). As the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) schedules DRO hearings, a remand of the claims on appeal for this purpose is warranted. If the Veteran no longer desires a DRO hearing, a signed writing to that effect should be placed in the claims file. Also, the evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. The most recent VA treatment records in the claims file are from the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System (dated to February 2021) and the Memphis Vista electronic records system (dated to October 2016). Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession, and must be obtained regardless of their relevance as long as they are sufficiently identified. Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 793 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (VA has a duty to assist in obtaining sufficiently identified VA medical records regardless of their relevance). See also Jones v. Wilkie, 918 F.3d 922 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (confirming the holding in Sullivan). A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s outstanding VA treatment records from the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System for the period since February 2021; the Memphis Vista electronic records system for the period since October 2016; and all such relevant records from any other sufficiently identified VA facility. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a DRO hearing at the Nashville, Tennessee RO. The Veteran and his representative should be notified of the date, time, and location of this hearing. A copy of that notification letter should also be placed in the claims file. Any attempts to accommodate the Veteran’s hearing request should be documented in the record. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) If the Veteran no longer desires a DRO hearing, a signed writing to that effect should be placed in the claims file. Brian J. Elwood Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Hennessy, Associate 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.