Citation Nr: 1320349 Decision Date: 06/24/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 11-13 245 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Honolulu, Hawaii THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Hawaii Office of Veterans Services WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph R. Keselyak, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1951 to February 1953. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Honolulu, Hawaii. In September 2012 this matter was last before the Board at which time the Board reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection of a right leg disorder and remanded the underlying claim for service connection for further development. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND In September 2012 the Board, inter alia, remanded the claim for service connection of a right leg disorder to obtain an addendum opinion to a November 2011 VA examination. In October 2012, an addendum noting that the claims file had been reviewed by the November 2011 VA examiner was obtained and associated with the claims file. Apparently in reviewing the addendum opinion, the Appeals Management Center (AMC) found that the opinion was insufficient and referred it to an in-house physician working at the AMC, rather than returning it to the examiner that conducted the November 2011 examination and who entered the October 2012 addendum. In April 2013, the AMC physician entered an negative etiological addendum to the October 2012 addendum opinion. No reason was given for not referring the opinion back to the November 2011/October 2012 VA examiner. The appeal must again be remanded. Firstly, the AMC failed to comply with the Board's remand directives, which required that the addendum opinion be entered by the November 2011 VA examiner, unless they were available. Only if this examiner was unavailable was the AMC have the addendum entered by another examiner. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a Board remand "confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders"). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Forwarded the Veteran's claims file to the VA examiner who performed the November 2011 VA examination and who entered the October 2012 addendum for a complete review of the claims file and preparation of an addendum opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right leg disorder is etiologically related to the Veteran's active duty service. If the November 2011 VA examiner is not available, the claims file should be provided to and reviewed in its entirety by another examiner with sufficient expertise to provide the required opinion with supporting rationale. The Veteran should be scheduled for another VA examination only if deemed necessary by the examiner providing the opinion. The supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide the required opinion, he or she should explain why the opinion cannot be provided. 2. Then, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated in light of all pertinent evidence and legal authority. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ MICHAEL A. PAPPAS 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) (2012).