Citation Nr: 18147991
Decision Date: 11/06/18	Archive Date: 11/06/18

DOCKET NO. 08-20 925
DATE:	November 6, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for inflammatory arthritis, not including osteoarthritis of the knees, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from May 1967 to December 1970.  He subsequently served in the Tennessee Air National Guard from June 1978 to June 1996, during which he had a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from August 1994 to February 1995.  In January 2010, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the proceeding is in the record.
In July 2014, the Board denied the Veteran’s service connection claim.  The Veteran subsequently appealed to the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  In a June 2015 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) which vacated the July 2014 Board decision with respect to the Veteran’s service connection claim and remanded the matter for readjudication consistent with the motion.
In August 2017, the Board remanded the claim in order to conduct additional development.  For the reasons discussed below, another remand is necessary to comply with the instructions in the June 2015 Joint Motion.
Entitlement to service connection for inflammatory arthritis, not including osteoarthritis of the knees is remanded.
The parties agreed in the June 2015 Joint Motion that a remand was required because a November 2011 VA addendum opinion concluding the Veteran’s bilateral wrist tendonitis was less likely than not related to military service or back pain was not supported by an adequate rationale.  The parties noted that the VA examiner did not address evidence favorable to the Veteran’s claim, namely, a November 1970 separation examination that included complaints of “painful joints” of both hands with “arthritis like symptoms.”  The parties agreed that remand was needed to either obtain a new medical opinion or a clarification of the November 2011 VA addendum opinion.  This directive has yet to be accomplished.  As such, remand is needed for an addendum VA opinion.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Return the claims file to the examiner who conducted the Veteran’s November 2011 VA examination – or to another appropriate examiner if the November 2011 VA examiner is unavailable – for a supplemental medical opinion on the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral wrist tendonitis.  The claims file, to include a copy of this Remand, must be made available to the opinion provider for review in connection with the exam.  The opinion provider is requested to address the following questions:
(a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that the Veteran’s diagnosed bilateral wrist tendonitis had it onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service?
(b) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral wrist tendonitis was caused by his service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine?
(c) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral wrist tendonitis was aggravated by his service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine?
A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, evidence would permit such an opinion to be made.
 
KEITH W. ALLEN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Jack S. Komperda, Counsel