Citation Nr: 21040220 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-29 321 DATE: July 2, 2021 REMANDED An initial rating in excess of 60 percent prior to August 1, 2017 for residuals of coronary bypass surgery is remanded. A rating in excess of 30 percent from August 1, 2017 onward, for residuals of coronary bypass surgery is remanded. An initial rating in excess of 50 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. An earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from January 1969 to August 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a travel Board hearing in May 2019 in Wichita, Kansas; a transcript is of record. The Board issued a decision in November 2019. After an appeal of the November 2019 Board decision , in February 2021, these matters were remanded by the U.S. Court of Veteran's Claims (Court) in a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR). The JMR stated that the issue of an earlier effective date before November 29, 2011 for service connection for the residuals of coronary bypass surgery was abandoned; thus, it is no longer on appeal and will not be addressed. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 60 percent prior to August 1, 2017 for residuals of coronary bypass surgery is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent prior from August 1, 2017 onward for residuals of coronary bypass surgery is remanded. In February 2021, the Court vacated and remanded the Board's November 2019 decision that denied an initial rating in excess of 60 percent prior to August 1, 2017, and 30 percent thereafter for residuals of coronary bypass surgery. The Court explained that the Veteran's VA treatment records showed that he received private treatment from a cardiologist, Dr. O. See 8/24/2017, CAPRI Private, at p. 8. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain relevant private treatment records. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is remanded. In February 2021, the Court vacated and remanded the Board's November 2019 decision that denied a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD. The Court found that the claims file did not contain all of the Veteran's relevant VA treatment records. In particular, the Court explained that the Veteran testified that he had been attending VA group counseling, but the most recent group counseling record was from August 2017. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain relevant VA treatment records. 4. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD is remanded. In February 2021, the Court vacated and remanded the Board's November 2019 decision that denied entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD. The Court directed the Board to address Lang v. Wilkie. 971 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Additionally, the Court stated that VA treatment records showed the Veteran received medical treatment after the original rating decision that denied service connection for PTSD (September 2007) that were not in the claims file. In this regard, the Veteran continued to receive treatment at a VA facility, and these treatment records were created within one year of the initial denial. These records, while not a part of the claims file, were constructively before the AOJ. Additionally, the AOJ did not determine whether the evidence was new and material. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b); Beraud v. McDonald, 766 F.3d 1402, 1406-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Lang v. Wilkie, 971 F.3d 1348, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The claims file does not appear to include all pertinent VA treatment records for the relevant periods. As such, the Board finds that this issue must be remanded to properly address the Court's directives. 5. Entitlement to special monthly compensation is remanded. In February 2021, the Court directed the Board to address whether entitlement to SMC was warranted for the Veteran's heart disability after the grant of a 60 percent rating for the Veteran's heart disability before July 31, 2017. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i). In this regard, the increased rating for the Veteran's heart disability is remanded above for additional development consistent with the Court's JMR. As such, the Board cannot issue a decision on the issue of entitlement to SMC because it is inextricably intertwined with the above remanded increased rating issues. See Harris v. Derwinksi, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (noting 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). As such, this issue is deferred pending the receipt of additional evidence, as directed below. These matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. The claims file does not appear to show all relevant VA treatment records; in particular, records from 2007-2008 and the Veteran's most recent VA records (2017 onward). All requests and responses for the records must be documented. If any identified records cannot be obtained, notify the Veteran of the missing records, the efforts taken, and any further efforts that will be made by VA to obtain such evidence, and allow him an opportunity to provide the missing records. 2. Request the Veteran to submit any relevant private treatment reports or provide VA with authorization to obtain any such records related to treatment he has received for his heart disability and PTSD. In particular, the RO should attempt to obtain private treatment records from the Veteran's cardiologist, Dr. O. See 8/24/2017, CAPRI Private, at p. 8. (Continued on the next page) If any identified records cannot be obtained, notify the Veteran of the missing records, the efforts taken, and any further efforts that will be made by VA to obtain such evidence, and allow him an opportunity to provide the missing records. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Morales, 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.