Citation Nr: 22012529
Decision Date: 03/04/22	Archive Date: 03/04/22

DOCKET NO. 18-48 939
DATE: March 4, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to a separate rating in excess of 10 percent for right thumb arthritis with painful limitation of motion as residual of a service-connected right wrist fracture is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) in June 1964, with additional periods of ACDUTRA and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA).

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

A Board hearing was held before the undersigned in February 2020.  A transcript of the hearing is of record. 

In April 2020 and January 2021, the Board remanded this matter for further development. 

Entitlement to a separate rating in excess of 10 percent for right thumb arthritis with painful limitation of motion as residual of a service-connected right wrist fracture is remanded.

In January 2021, the Board concluded that the Veteran was not entitled to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right wrist fracture but was entitled to a separate initial 10 percent rating for right thumb arthritis with painful limitation of motion as residual of a service-connected right wrist fracture under diagnostic code 5003-5228.  The Board also concluded that the evidence of record was insufficient to determine if the Veteran was entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right thumb arthritis under DC 5228.  Thus, the Board remanded the issue of a rating in excess of 10 percent for right thumb arthritis with painful limitation of motion as residual of a service-connected right wrist and asked that a VA examination be completed.  

In April 2021, the Veteran submitted a statement and indicated that he was treated for his right thumb condition by an outside orthopedist Dr. B.P.  In August 2021, the Veteran provided Dr. B.P.'s updated address.  Although records from Dr. B.P. were previously requested, the Veteran's statements raise questions as to whether he has subsequently sought treatment with Dr. B.P.  As these statements were submitted subsequent to when the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the supplemental statement of the case, efforts have not been made to obtain the records of that treatment from the address provided by the Veteran in the August 2021 statement.  Because such records, if obtained, might contain information bearing on the Veteran's appeal, efforts should be made to procure them.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). 

The matter is REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Obtain and associate with the claims file VA treatment records from September 2020 to the present.

(Continued on the next page)

 

2. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claim, to include records from Dr. B.P.  Based on the response received, attempt to procure copies of all records which have not previously been obtained from identified treatment sources.

 

 

M. SORISIO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S. Patel, 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.