Citation Nr: 18147600 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 15-06 500 DATE: November 5, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of an injury to the ring finger, left hand is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1982 to August 1986. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of an injury to the ring finger, left hand is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. During his Board hearing, the Veteran stated that has sought treatment for recurrent pain and symptoms of numbness in his extremities with a private orthopedic practice, Reno Orthopedics, and a chiropractor. The claims file does not indicate that attempts have been made to obtain records from these physicians. The Board finds that reasonable attempts should be made to obtain any relevant records prior to adjudication of the Veteran’s claims on appeal. Additionally, the Veteran reported that he performed duties as a welder during his period of service, which he stated was a physically demanding position particularly on his joints. He stated that he believes that the wear and tear of this position resulted in several current orthopedic disabilities. During his hearing, he stated that he suffered an in-service injury to his left ring finger that resulted in a burn scar. He also reported diagnoses of a partially torn rotator cuff of the right shoulder, bursitis and meniscal tears of the bilateral knees, and recurrent symptoms of pain in his neck and elbows and symptoms of numbness in his hands. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been provided with a VA examination regarding whether these symptoms and diagnoses are due to his period of active service; accordingly, the Board finds that an examination should be provided to determine whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of these conditions and whether the conditions were incurred during, or are otherwise the result of, his period of active service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. First, undertake appropriate efforts to obtain any private treatment records identified by the Veteran, or his representative, including records related to the Veteran’s treatment with Reno Orthopedic and his chiropractor. The Veteran and his representative should be asked to provide any needed assistance in identifying and obtaining these records. 2. The Veteran must be afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of his any current disability of his shoulders, knees, hands, elbows, neck, and left ring finger. The claims file must be made available to the examiner. The examiner must report review of the claims file. The examiner is specifically asked to provide the following opinions: a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability) that any current disability of the right or left shoulder is due to or the result of, any incident of his period of active service. b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability) that any current disability of the right or left knee is due to or the result of, any incident of his period of active service. c) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability) that any current disability of the right or left hand is due to or the result of, any incident of his period of active service. d) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability) that any current disability of the right or left elbows is due to or the result of, any incident of his period of active service. e) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability) that any current neck disability is due to or the result of, any incident of his period of active service. f) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability) that any current left ring finger disability is due to or the result of, any incident of his period of active service. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. In providing the requested opinions, the examiner must address the Veteran’s lay assertions. The appellant’s lay statements cannot be disregarded solely due to lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. 3. After completing the above, and any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. K. PARAKKAL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P.M. Johnson, Counsel