Citation Nr: 21026481 Decision Date: 05/03/21 Archive Date: 05/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-04 815 DATE: May 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability, including as due to a right knee disability, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, including as due to a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for a right knee surgical scar is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1961 to June 1965 in the U.S. Air Force. He also had additional U.S. Air Force Reserves and U.S. Air Force National Guard service. A videoconference Board hearing was held in October 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. In December 2019, the Board denied, in pertinent part, all of the Veteran's currently appealed claims. The Veteran, through an attorney, and VA's Office of General Counsel appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) by filing a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion). The Court granted the Joint Motion in November 2020, vacating and remanding the Board's December 2019 decision to the extent that it denied all of the currently appealed claims. The Board notes that it also remanded claims of service connection for Parkinson's disease and entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in December 2019. It subsequently denied both of these claims in November 2020. Thus, these claims are no longer in appellate status. Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board finds that the issues on appeal should be characterized as stated above. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred disabilities of the bilateral shoulders, right knee, bilateral hips, left knee, bilateral eyes (which he characterized as failing eyesight), bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus during active service and experienced continuous post-service disability. He alternatively contends that a right knee disability caused or aggravated (permanently worsened) his disabilities of the bilateral hips and left knee. He also contends that his service-connected right knee surgical scar is more disabling than currently evaluated. Having reviewed the record evidence, and because the Board is bound by the Court's November 2020 Order granting the Joint Motion, this appeal must be remanded to the AOJ for additional development. Both parties to the Joint Motion argued successfully to the Court that VA had failed in its duty to assist the Veteran by not requesting identified VA outpatient treatment records from VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) in Marion, Indiana, and the Richard L. Roudebush VAMC in Indianapolis, Indiana. Both parties also argued successfully to the Court that VA had failed in its duty to assist the Veteran by not requesting all of his medical records concerning in-patient treatment for right knee surgery dated between April and June 1965 from Travis Air Force Base. The Board again notes that it is bound by the Court's November 2020 Order granting the Joint Motion. Thus, the Board finds that, on remand, the AOJ should attempt to obtain these records. Both parties to the Joint Motion contended that that VA examinations for a right knee disability and for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus dated in August 2013 were inadequate for VA adjudication purposes. They also contended that, on remand, new examinations should be scheduled to address the contended etiological relationships between a right knee disability, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and active service. The Board again notes that it is bound by the Court's November 2020 Order granting the Joint Motion. Thus, on remand, the AOJ should schedule new examinations or obtain medical nexus opinions which address these matters. With respect to the Veteran's service connection claims for a bilateral eye disability and for a bilateral shoulder disability, both parties to the Joint Motion asserted that the Board failed to consider whether examinations to determine the nature and etiology of both of these claimed disabilities may be required. Having reviewed the record evidence, the Board concludes that, on remand, the AOJ should schedule examinations or obtain medical nexus opinions which address these matters. The Board finally notes that, because adjudication of the service connection claim for a right knee disability being remanded likely will impact adjudication of the service connection claims for a left knee disability and for a bilateral hip disability, all of these claims are inextricably intertwined. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998), citing Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that two issues are inextricably intertwined when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision on one issue cannot be rendered until the other issue has been considered). Thus, adjudication of the service connection claims for a left knee disability and for a bilateral hip disability, each including as due to a right knee disability, must be deferred. The AOJ also should obtain the Veteran's updated treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran's updated treatment records. 2. Contact the appropriate Federal records repository and request the Veteran's complete outpatient treatment records dated between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2003 from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Marion, Indiana, and from the Richard L. Roudebush VAMC in Indianapolis, Indiana. A copy of any request(s) for these records, and any reply, to include any records obtained or a negative reply, should be associated with the claims file. 3. Contact the appropriate Federal records repository and request the Veteran's complete medical treatment records from Travis Air Force Base Hospital dated between April 1, 1965, and June 30, 1965. A copy of any request(s) for these records, and any reply, to include any records obtained or a negative reply, should be associated with the claims file. 4. Thereafter, forward the claims file to a clinician for an opinion concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right knee disability. The Veteran does not need to report for examination. Based on a review of the claims file, the clinician is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that a right knee disability, if diagnosed, is related to active service. A rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. 5. Forward the claims file to a clinician for an opinion concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The Veteran does not need to report for examination. Based on a review of the claims file, the clinician is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that bilateral hearing loss, if diagnosed, is related to active service. The clinician next is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that tinnitus, if diagnosed, is related to active service. A rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. 6. Forward the claims file to a clinician for an opinion concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral eye disability. The Veteran does not need to report for examination. Based on a review of the claims file, the clinician is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that a bilateral eye disability, if diagnosed, is related to active service. A rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. A separate opinion and rationale should be provided for each bilateral eye disability currently experienced by the Veteran, if appropriate. If any requested opinion(s) cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, then the clinician is asked to explain why this is so. 7. Forward the claims file to a clinician for an opinion concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral shoulder disability. The Veteran does not need to report for examination. Based on a review of the claims file, the clinician is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that a bilateral shoulder disability, if diagnosed, is related to active service. A rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. A separate opinion and rationale should be provided for each of the Veteran's shoulders, if appropriate. 8. Readjudicate the appeal. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.