Citation Nr: 22040163 Decision Date: 07/13/22 Archive Date: 07/13/22 DOCKET NO. 18-03 227 DATE: July 13, 2022 REMANDED Whether the reduction in the evaluation for residuals of prostate cancer from 100 percent to 60 percent from April1, 2016, was proper, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for residuals of prostate cancer for the period since April 1, 2016, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1965 to March1969. The Veteran appeals the reduction in the evaluation for residuals of prostate cancer from 100 percent to 60 percent from April1, 2016, entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for residuals of prostate cancer for the period since April 1, 2016 and entitlement to TDIU. When this appeal was last before the Board in December 2021, it was determined that further development was needed to include obtaining private treatment records from Dr. M, Dr. R.S and Dr. S. The AOJ was instructed to obtain and associate with the file the private treatment records. In doing so, it was requested that the AOJ make two requests for the authorized records from these providers, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile as required by regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). In December 2021, the AOJ sent the Veteran development correspondence requesting that he submit a VA Form 21-4142 for his private physicians Dr. M, Dr. R.S and Dr. S. While the record shows that the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4142 in June 2022, the authorization was general and did not identify any specific providers. The AOJ sent the Veteran another development letter in June 2022. The Board notes, however, that the letter did not identify the specific records and/or providers being requested. The second request for records is inadequate. Therefore, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives regarding the issues on appeal. Accordingly, another remand is required to obtain these records. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). With regard to the claim for entitlement to TDIU, the Board notes that during the October 2020 and December 2021 Board remands the Veteran was asked to submit a VA Form 21-8940, Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based Unemployability. To date, the Veteran has not submitted a VA Form 21-8940 and the Board will not make another request on this matter. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991); Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60 (1993) (VA's duty to assist is not a one-way street; if a veteran wants help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where his own actions are essential in obtaining evidence). The Board finds that this issue, however, is inextricably intertwined with the claims for restoration and entitlement to a higher rating, and it must also be remanded. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for the Veteran's private physician and urologist, specifically all records from Dr. M and Dr. R.S as well as Dr. S. of Breckinridge. The AOJ should make clear the specific providers by name, and instruct the Veteran that simply returning an authorization form without the required information for each provider is insufficient. Make two requests for the authorized records from these providers, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. These private treatment records should be obtained and associated with the claims folder. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T.S. Willie 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.