Citation Nr: 18139996 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 14-28 806A DATE: October 2, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a clothing allowance for the year 2014 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from June 1969 to January 1972. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 administrative decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Orlando, Florida. The Veteran requested a personal hearing before a member of the Board in his August 2014 Substantive Appeal. Although a hearing was scheduled for September 12, 2018, the Veteran cancelled his request for a hearing in a statement received by VA in August 2018. Consequently, the Veteran’s request for a personal hearing is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.702(e). Clothing allowance. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a clothing allowance due to his use of a knee brace. He is service connected for, amongst other disabilities, degenerative joint disease with partial lateral collateral ligament tear of the right knee. Indeed, on his April 2014 application for a clothing allowance, the Veteran listed his knee brace as the cause of his claim. Further, on his August 2014 VA form 9 the Veteran stated that he presented physical and visual evidence supporting his claim that his knee brace caused his pants to wear and tear. The Board notes that neither the May 2014 administrative decision nor the July 2014 statement of the case (SOC) address the appliances/devices raised by the Veteran in the context of this claim. In that regard, the rationale given in the May 2014 administrative decision was overgeneralized to simply state that the evidence does not show that, because of a service-connected disability, the Veteran wears or uses a rigid prosthetic device or orthopedic appliance which tends to wear out clothing or because of a service-connected skin condition uses a medication that causes irreparable damage to his outer garments; the July 2014 statement of the case did not address the Veteran’s knee brace contention, instead noted that the Veteran’s prescribed back brace was not considered a device that causes wear or tear of clothing because the metal stays of the back brace covered in fabric. Overall, the Board notes that the rationale given does not take into consideration the statements made by the Veteran to the effect that his knee brace causes wear and tear to his pants. An examination of the Veteran was not conducted in connection with the instant claim, but one appears necessary to resolve the critical questions remaining. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should then arrange for an orthopedic examination of the Veteran to ascertain the effect on his clothing of his right knee brace. He should be asked to bring to the examination (if available) items of clothing that have suffered wear and tear (or irreparable damage) as a result of the appliances/devices or medications identified (or if none are available, explain why that is so). The examiner should also note the state of any garments brought to the examination for inspection, and consider the Veteran’s lay statements (and if rejected as not credible, point to the clinical findings that support that conclusion). The examiner should expressly note whether the Veteran’s use of a right knee brace was prescribed/issued for any service-connected disability and whether such appliances/devices tend to wear or tear his garments. If the response is that that they do not, the examiner should explain why that is so. All opinions should include a clear rationale consistent with the evidence of record. 2. Confirm that the VA examination report and any opinions provided comport with this remand, and undertake any other development found to be warranted. 3. Then, readjudicate the remaining issue on appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. Cannaday, Associate Counsel