Citation Nr: 0813030 Decision Date: 04/18/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 02-00 018A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a right toe disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Adams, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1990 to May 1990. He also had periods of active and inactive duty for training in the Army Reserves from June 1988 to 2001, to include a period of inactive duty for training in August 1991 when he was injured in a bicycle accident. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2001 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. When this case previously was most recently before the Board in November 2006, the Board remanded it for further action by the originating agency. It has since been returned to the Board for further appellate action. REMAND Pursuant to the Board's November 2006 remand, the veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2007. The VA examiner specifically was asked to determine the nature and etiology of each currently present chronic toe disorder and each currently present chronic disorder of the veteran's right knee, right wrist, right shoulder, right ankle, and left ankle. The examiner did not identify each currently present chronic disorder, as requested, but instead rendered a general diagnosis of multiple joint arthralgias without any degenerative changes. Moreover, the examiner offered no opinion regarding the relationship between any currently present chronic disorder and the veteran's active military service. The Board finds that the November 2007 VA examination report does not adequately address the instructions included in the November 2006 remand. The U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that compliance with a remand is not discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates another remand for corrective action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO or the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, D.C., for the following actions: 1. The RO or the AMC should arrange for the veteran to be afforded a VA examination by a physician with appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of each currently present chronic toe disorder and each currently present chronic disorder of the veteran's right knee, right wrist, right shoulder, right ankle, and left ankle. The claims folder must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. With respect to each disorder or abnormality identified, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent or better probability that such disorder or abnormality is etiologically related to the veteran's active military service. The examiner should set forth the complete rationale for all opinions expressed and conclusions reached. The Board notes that the term "active military service" includes any period of active duty for training or inactive duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty during such training. 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24)(C) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a) (2007). 2. The RO or the AMC should also undertake any other development it determines to be warranted. 3. Then, the RO or the AMC should readjudicate the veteran's claims based on a de novo review of the record. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued, and the veteran and his representative should be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the claims folder is returned to the Board for further appellate action. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the appellant until he is otherwise notified, but he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This case must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ Shane A. Durkin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).