Citation Nr: 18147437 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-03 732 DATE: November 5, 2018 REMANDED The claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes, type II, claimed due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. The claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, and an anxiety disorder, is remanded. The claim for entitlement to an increased rating for a right arm disability classified as right shoulder impingement syndrome (previously claimed as right upper arm injury) is remanded. The claim for entitlement to an increased rating for a right arm disability classified as a right upper arm strain muscle group V (previously claimed as scar right upper arm injury) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from August 1963 to August 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an October 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. In March 2017, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge, a transcript of which has been associated with the claims file. In June 2017, the Board remanded the increased rating claims for upper arm strain muscle group V and right shoulder impingement syndrome for further development. This remand further stated a Board decision would be forthcoming on the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Since the Board’s remand, the additional issue of service connection for diabetes, type II, was certified to the Board. The Board’s June 2017 remand also referred a pending claim (via an August 2010 report of General Information), for a dental condition. This issue is again referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for appropriate action. The claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes, type II, claimed due to herbicide exposure, is remanded. In his March 2017 claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes, type II, the Veteran indicated he was exposed to Agent Orange while stationed at Fort Campbell. An April 2017 formal finding sent to the Veteran indicated there was insufficient information to send to the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to allow for meaningful research of AO exposure issue. In his subsequent June 2017 substantive appeal of this issue, the Veteran stated he observed Agent Orange barrels while in service. Given the Veteran’s contentions, a remand is necessary for an attempt to verify his claimed in service exposure to herbicide agents. The claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, and an anxiety disorder, is remanded. The Board previously remanded this claim in July 2016 to obtain an addendum opinion. Pursuant to the Board’s July 2016 remand directives, the Veteran’s claim should have been readjudicated following the development ordered in the July 2016 remand and a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) should have been issued to the Veteran and his representative. Nevertheless, the AOJ did not readjudicate the claim and issue an SSOC. Accordingly, a remand for compliance with prior remand directives and issuance of an SSOC is necessary to put this case in the proper procedural posture. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that where the remand orders of the Board are not fully implemented, the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance). The claims for entitlement to increased rating for a right arm disability classified as right shoulder impingement syndrome (previously claimed as right upper arm injury); and for a right arm disability classified as a right upper arm strain muscle group V (previously claimed as scar right upper arm injury) are remanded. The Veteran underwent VA examination in August 2017 to evaluate the nature and severity of his right arm/shoulder disabilities. The examiner indicated being unable to describe motion loss during a flare of disability as the Veteran did not have a flare at the time of examination. This examination report must be returned as inadequate for rating purposes pursuant to Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims folder all outstanding VA treatment records. 2. To the extent possible, attempt to verify the Veteran’s claimed exposure to herbicide agents in service while stationed at Fort Campbell. In doing so, the RO is reminded that the duty to assist requires, if necessary, the submission of multiple requests for verification covering 60-day increments. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the severity of his service-connected right arm disability classified as right shoulder impingement syndrome (previously claimed as right upper arm injury); and right arm disability classified as a right upper arm strain muscle group V (previously claimed as scar right upper arm injury). The Veteran’s electronic claims file must be made available for review. To comply with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017), the examiner is asked to describe whether pain, weakness, fatigue and/or incoordination significantly limits functional ability during flares or repetitive use, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flares or repetitive use. If the examination does not take place during a flare, the examiner should have the Veteran describe and/or demonstrate the extent of motion loss during flares or repetitive use and provide the extent of motion loss described in terms of degrees. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. The examiner should comment as to whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran’s description of reduced range of motion during flares or repetitive use. Also, in order to comply with the Court’s decision in Correia, the VA examination must include range of motion testing in the following areas: • Active motion; • Passive motion; • Weight-bearing; and • Nonweight-bearing. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. 4. Readjudicate the appeal after any necessary development is complete. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Rasool