10-37 188, 10-37 188

Veteran served on active duty Aug 1992–Dec 1994 and is service‑connected for chronic lumbosacral strain (initial 10% rating).
Veteran sought increased ratings; RO granted 20% effective April 19, 2013, but denied higher ratings for earlier and later periods; Veteran disputed both the percentage and the effective date.
Procedural history includes Board remands (Feb 2013, Apr/Sep 2014, Sep 2016), a Jan 2015 Board denial partially vacated and remanded by the Court in Mar 2016, and development requests for VA medical opinions and examinations.
A December 23, 2016 VA exam was scheduled but the Veteran did not report; the claims file lacks clear proof he received advance notice of that appointment.
The Board found good cause for the Veteran’s failure to attend because of insufficient proof of proper notice; the Board ordered further development including obtaining treatment records and re‑scheduling a VA examination with detailed instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Rating in excess of 10% for period before Apr 19, 2013	Veteran: earlier filing (Jan 29, 2007) and evidence support an increased rating prior to Apr 19, 2013	VA/RO: 20% assigned effective Apr 19, 2013; prior claims were addressed and prior 10% continued	Board remanded for further development and medical exam to determine severity pre‑Apr 19, 2013
2. Rating in excess of 20% since Apr 19, 2013	Veteran: disagreed with 20% and effective date; seeks rating >20% since earlier claim dates	VA/RO: increased to 20% effective Apr 19, 2013 based on medical evidence of worsening	Board remanded for further development and a comprehensive VA examination to assess current severity and radiculopathy
3. Failure to attend VA exam (Dec 23, 2016) — effect on claim development	Veteran: asserted scheduling conflict (teacher) and implicitly challenged notice	VA/RO: non‑appearance could justify denial if without good cause and notice was proper	Board found good cause (insufficient evidence of proper notice) and ordered re‑scheduling and documentation of notice efforts
4. Duty to assist — obtaining treatment records and exam adequacy	Veteran: entitlement to full development and assistance to support higher rating	VA: must obtain records and schedule exam, but claimant also bears some responsibility	Board directed specific development steps (obtain VA/non‑VA records, detailed ROM testing, flare‑up and radiculopathy assessment) and remanded the claims

AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (recognizing that an increase that is partial grant leaves issues still on appeal)
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (Board must ensure compliance with its remand directives)
Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (claimants have some responsibility to assist in obtaining evidence)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (veteran may submit additional evidence after remand)