Citation Nr: 18155230 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-62 339 DATE: December 4, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right and left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from June 1979 to June 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. Entitlement to service connection for right and left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. In May 2013, a VA examiner opined that it was unlikely that the Veteran’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was attributable to service. The examiner noted, in part, that the condition began years after service and was associated with the purging of files at work and treated as a workman’s compensation matter. In her December 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran took issue with the VA examiner’s opinion. The Veteran reported that she only purged files for a period of one week as a temporary employee with Kelly Services. She said that it was conclusively determined that her condition existed prior to her work with Kelly Services and was not related to purging files. Presently, there are no records in the claims file relating to the referenced workman’s compensation matter. Further development is required. See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(2) (if VA becomes aware of the existence of relevant records before deciding a claim, VA will, among other things, request that the claimant provide a release for the records). Updated records of any relevant VA treatment should also be procured. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). See also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (holding that VA is charged with constructive notice of medical evidence in its possession). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide a release for relevant records pertaining to the workman’s compensation matter associated with the purging of files with Kelly Services, and to identify, and provide appropriate releases for, any other facilities or care providers who may possess new or additional evidence pertinent to the issue on appeal. If she provides the necessary release(s), assist her in obtaining the records identified, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Any new or additional (i.e., non-duplicative) evidence received should be associated with the record. If any of the records sought are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect that fact and the Veteran and her representative should be notified. 2. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any relevant VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 3. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, make arrangements to have the VA examiner who previously evaluated the Veteran in May 2013 review the expanded record and provide a supplemental report regarding the extent to which, if any, the additional evidence received since May 2013—including the Veteran’s clarifying statements with respect to the short duration of her work with purging files—impacts on his prior etiological opinion. If the May 2013 examiner is no longer employed by VA, or is otherwise unable to provide the opinion(s) requested, arrange to obtain the requested information from another qualified examiner. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner(s) selected to offer the requested opinions. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 4. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and her representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Hallie E. Brokowsky, Counsel