Citation Nr: 22017981 Decision Date: 03/27/22 Archive Date: 03/27/22 DOCKET NO. 20-00 146 DATE: March 27, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for spinal stenosis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to spinal stenosis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1965 to October 1968 with subsequent service in the United States Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. In January 2022, he had a hearing before the undersigned at the Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. As an initial matter, the Board notes that, in addition to the claims on appeal, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) in December 2018 with regard to the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In November 2019, a rating decision was issued granting service connection for bilateral hearing loss. This decision was a complete grant of benefits with respect to the issue of service connection pertaining to bilateral hearing loss, and the issue is no longer on appeal before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Veteran is seeking service connection for spinal stenosis and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. Specifically, the Veteran testified at the January 2022 hearing that he injured his back in a motor vehicle accident in service and that his radiculopathy of the bilateral extremities is related to his back disability. At the January 2022 hearing, the Veteran testified that he had been seeking treatment from his private care provider, Dr. Moussly, for over 15 years. Dr. Moussly indicated in a July 2018 statement that he had been treating the Veteran since 2009, and he indicated in a January 2020 statement that he had been treating the Veteran since 2006. However, the claims file does not contain these treatment records dating back to 2009 or 2006. As such, the issues on appeal must be remanded in order to obtain the outstanding private treatment records. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran testified at the January 2022 hearing that he had sought treatment at a VA facility in Syracuse dating back to the 1990s. These records should be obtained on remand as well. The earliest records in the file are from the VA in Daytona in 2009. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate the following with the claims file: (a.) All archived and electronic treatment records from the Syracuse VA Medical Center (VAMC) and associated outpatient clinics dating back to January 1, 1990. Searches must be made of archived or retired PAPER records with negative responses documented for the file. (b.) All available medical records from the Orlando VA Medical Center (VAMC) and associated outpatient clinics from June 2020 to the present. 2. Send to the Veteran a letter requesting that he provide sufficient information, and if necessary, authorization to enable the Regional Office (RO) to obtain any outstanding, pertinent private medical records, to specifically include all available treatments from Dr. Moussly dating back to 2006. Request all identified records. Associate any records received, including negative responses, with the claims file. 3. DO NOT PROCEED WITH THE FOLLOWING until all the above VA and private medical records have been obtained, to the extent possible. 4. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to obtain an opinion as to the etiology of his back condition. The examiner should opine as to whether it is as likely as not the Veteran's back condition is related to service, to include the motor vehicle accident. See STRs with receipt date 8/9/18 at pages 28-32. The examiner must consider the Veteran's statements and the treatise evidence he has submitted. See various correspondence in file with receipt date 3/14/22. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Durham, 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.