Citation Nr: 18143146 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 16-00 001A DATE: October 18, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a clothing allowance for the year 2015 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from October 1975 to October 1995. 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 Washington, D.C. Clothing allowance The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a clothing allowance due to his use of a knee brace and back brace. He is service-connected for, amongst other disabilities, patellofemoral syndrome with degenerative arthritis of the right knee, and lumbar degenerative disc disease. Indeed, the Veteran asserts that his back brace is used for his service-connected low back disability, that the brace does not have padding around it, and that it wears out his clothing. Similarly, he asserts that his knee brace is used for his service-connected knee disability. The Board notes that the December 2015 statement of the case found that the Veteran’s right knee brace was not prescribed for a service connected condition, and that the Veteran’s back brace does not have any exposed joints, is covered with a soft interface, and that the record does not show that the brace tends to wear out or tear clothing. However, on his December 2015 VA Form 9, the Veteran stated that the back brace that he used is different from the back brace discussed in the statement of the case (SOC), and that his knee brace was used to help with pain, swelling, and weakness. The Veteran submitted pictures of his back brace. Indeed, the medical treatment record does note that the Veteran requested a custom back brace as his previous brace did not provide enough back support. Moreover, the medical record notes that the Veteran used a back brace for his low back disability, and a custom knee brace for stability. The Veteran appears to assert that stability issue is related to his service-connected knee disability. Subsequently, in an August 2016 review, the Chief of the Prosthetic Treatment Center found that the Veteran’s right knee brace and back brace were not prescribed for a service-connected condition, and that a review of the medical record did not show continued use of the devices. Thus, the decision to deny the Veteran’s claim remained unchanged. No further rationale was provided. Overall, the Board notes that the rationale given does not adequately address the statements made by the Veteran to the effect that his back brace is different from the brace discussed in the December 2015 SOC, nor that his back and knee braces were prescribed for service-connected disabilities. As such, 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 arrange for an orthopedic examination of the Veteran to ascertain the effect on his clothing of his back brace and 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. The examiner should expressly note whether the Veteran’s use of a back brace, and/or 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. Then, readjudicate the 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