Citation Nr: 21025321 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-21 961 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMAND Entitlement to service connection for a gynecological disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1980 to August 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newnan, Georgia. In May 2019, a Board hearing was conducted via videoconference with the RO in Detroit, Michigan. A transcript of this hearing is contained within the electronic claims file. The Board previously remanded this claim, as well as the issue for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. In an October 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was awarded service connection for other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder with a total disability rating effective August 27, 2013. Thus, that issue no longer is before the Board, so into longer will be associated with this appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a grant of service connection extinguishes appeals before the Board). With respect to the gynecological issue, the Board remanded the claim back to VA so that it could obtain private treatment records from St. Joseph’s Mercy Hospital (St. Joseph) and so that VA could provide the Veteran with an initial examination and opinion, noting that a letter from the Veteran’s private physician, Dr. J.Z., was insufficient to award service connection. When there exists a remand, from either the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) or the Board, a veteran is entitled to substantial compliance with those remand directives. D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). If VA makes reasonable efforts to obtain relevant non-federal records but is unable to obtain them, or after continued efforts to obtain federal records concludes that it is reasonably certain they do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, VA will provide the claimant with oral or written notice of that fact. VA will make a record of any oral notice conveyed to the claimant. For non-federal records requests, VA may provide the notice at the same time it makes its final attempt to obtain the relevant records. In either case, the notice must contain the following information: (i) the identity of the records VA was unable to obtain; (ii) an explanation of the efforts VA made to obtain the records; (iii) a description of any further action VA will take regarding the claim, including, but not limited to, notice that VA will decide the claim based on the evidence of record unless the claimant submits the records VA was unable to obtain; and (iv) a notice that the claimant is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(1). In April 2020, a VA representative reported that the request for the private records from St. Joseph was being closed out, as there was an indication that a fee was required to obtain the records. Subsequent review of the claims file discloses that VA never sent notification to the Veteran of the efforts that it took to obtain the St. Joseph records and that further efforts to obtain them would be discontinued because of the fee requirement. Because VA never informed the Veteran of its decision, she has been deprived of notice and opportunity to obtain those records on her own and submit them to VA as part of her appeal. Thus, remand is required so that VA can inform the Veteran of its attempts to obtain the St. Joseph records and that, should she wish those records to be part of her claims file, it now is her obligation to obtain and submit them to the Board. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(e)(1), 20.904(a). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send to the Veteran the legally required notice under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(1) to inform her of VA’s efforts to obtain the private medical records from St. Joseph and that VA no longer will make attempts to obtain them. 2. Conduct any other development deemed necessary and then readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter that the Board has remanded. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded for additional development or other appropriate action by the Board or the CAVC must be handled in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Trevor T. Bernard, 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.