Citation Nr: 1323616 Decision Date: 07/24/13 Archive Date: 08/01/13 DOCKET NO. 07-16 767 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Van Wambeke, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1979 to January 1986. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2006 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio (RO). The appeal is remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC. REMAND Although the Veteran was provided with a VA examination addressing the etiology of his left ankle disorder in January 2013, the Board does not find the opinion provided by the examiner to be adequate. It is not clear from the opinion provided, that all evidence pertinent to the claim was reviewed and considered. Accordingly, the case is remanded for the following action: 1. The VA examiner that provided the opinion regarding the left ankle disorder in January 2013, must prepare an addendum to the opinion provided in the December 2013 examination report. The January 2013 examiner noted that "[o]ur center has applied for access to Virtual VA but has not yet been granted." Nevertheless, the claims file and all electronic records, to include records on Virtual VA must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must specify in the examination report that the claims file and Virtual VA and other electronic records have been reviewed. The examiner must specify the dates encompassed by the Virtual VA and other electronic records that were reviewed. The VA examiner in January 2013 stated that the first evidence of treatment or complaints of a left ankle disorder subsequent to service discharge was in 2000. However, a January 1993 VA progress note reveals that the Veteran complained of left ankle pain, as well as stiffness in the morning, which he related to a 1979 injury. Accordingly, the examiner must address this evidence in providing a supplemental opinion to the opinion provided in January 2013, as to whether the Veteran's left ankle disorder is related to his military service. Moreover, the examiner in January 2013 stated that there was a lack of chronic residuals since the left ankle condition was first noted in 2000. However, a January 2003 examination found a chronic left ankle dysfunction, secondary to old injury. An October 2004 examination reported degenerative arthritis in the ankles, left greater than right, both clinically and radiographically. X-ray taken in October 2004 revealed small osteophyte at the dorsal aspect of the talus of the left ankle measuring six millimeters, as well as plantar heel spur measuring nine millimeters. In June 2006, left ankle degenerative arthritis was shown. An August 2007 orthopedic consultation revealed an old, healed fracture, and arthritic changes in the talonavicular joint, with osteophyte formation and anterior joint space arthritic changes. Accordingly, the examiner must address this evidence in providing a supplemental opinion to the opinion provided in January 2013, as to whether the Veteran's left ankle disorder is related to his military service. 2. After completing the above actions, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken above, the claim on appeal must be readjudicated. If the issue on appeal remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. No action is required by the Veteran until he receives further notice; however, he may present additional evidence or argument while the case is in remand status at the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). _________________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD 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).