Citation Nr: 18156985 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 14-10 665A DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar wart disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from March 2003 to May 2008. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2008 rating decision (which denied service connection for bilateral plantar warts) and a May 2015 rating decision (which denied service connection for a neck disability). In October 2016, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. In November 2017 the case was remanded for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral plantar wart disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. A claimant is, as a matter of law, entitled to Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) compliance with instructions in a Board remand for development. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The November 2017 Board remand ordered an examination to confirm the existence and determine the nature and likely etiology of the claimed plantar wart disability. A March 2012 VA examination found that plantar warts had been eradicated (no longer existed), and found calluses and hyperkeratosis on the plantar surfaces of both feet. The provider did not indicate whether the findings were residuals of plantar warts. A January 2013 VA treatment record notes there were plantar warts on the Veteran’s left foot, and lists a diagnosis of “recurrent warts”. Later treatment records also not recurrent plantar warts. This matter was returned to the Board without an examination conducted. Regarding the claim of service connection for a neck disability, the November 2017 Board remand instructed that the Veteran be afforded opportunity to provide a clarifying statement from Dr. Gilbert (who reported he treated the Veteran while he was in service, but did not identify the dates of treatment, the nature of the treatment, the condition treated, or why treatment was terminated), and to submit a supplemental opinion from Dr. JOK (who considered it probable that [the Veteran’s] cervical issue is service-connected, identified the sources of his information, but did not include rationale with the opinion offered). As is indicated in the September 2018 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) the Veteran was afforded this opportunity and did not respond. While the Veteran did not submit further statements/opinions from Dr. Gilbert or Dr. JOK, he has submitted an October 2018 statement from D.O., D.C., who found it highly probably that the Veteran sustained permanent injuries to his neck in the military service. He indicated that the opinion was based on the Veteran’s accounts and examination that included X-rays showing degenerative changes at C5-6. The Board had instructed in the remand if additional evidence received included any probative evidence that a current neck disability may be related to service, the Veteran was to be afforded an orthopedic examination to determine the nature and etiology of his neck disability. While the probative weight of Dr. D.O.’s opinion is yet to be assessed, it is probative evidence. Dr. D.O. included rationale that cites to the Veteran’s reports of continuing neck pain since service and the nature of the current clinical findings. Therefore, an examination was indicated. As an examination not conducted, a remand for corrective action is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following: 1. Obtain for the record any outstanding, updated to the present, records of evaluations or treatment the Veteran has received for his feet and neck since his separation from service (any not already in the record.) 2. Then arrange for a podiatry examination of the Veteran to confirm the existence, and ascertain the nature and likely etiology, of his claimed bilateral plantar wart disability. The Veteran’s entire record must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. On review of the record and interview and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide opinions that respond to the following: a. Does the Veteran have plantar warts (or residuals of plantar warts removal) on either or both feet? If not, reconcile that conclusion with the clinical records (in January 2013 and since) indicating that he has recurring plantar warts. Specifically indicate whether any calluses or hyperkeratoses on the plantar surfaces of the feet are residuals of plantar wart removal. b. If so, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) that the plantar warts (or residuals) now found are etiologically related to the plantar warts excised in service? The examiner must include rationale with all opinions. The rationale must include discussion of the nature, features, and etiology of plantar warts, to include whether they are considered acute pathology that completely resolves with removal or a chronic condition (or may have chronic residuals such as scarring). 3. Also arrange for an orthopedic examination of the Veteran to determine the nature and likely etiology of his neck disability, and specifically whether it is etiologically related to his active service/to include as due to activities/injuries therein. The Veteran’s record must be reviewed by the examiner. On review of the record and examination of the Veteran (and noting the Veteran’s accounts that he has had neck pain since service and the October 2018 opinion by Dr. D.O.) the examiner should: (a) Identify (by diagnosis) each neck disability entity found/or shown by the record during the pendency of the instant claim. (b) Identify the likely etiology for each neck disability entity diagnosed. Specifically, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) that it was incurred in service, to include as due to physical training? (c) If the opinion is to the effect that a current neck disability was not related to service, please identify the etiology considered more likely. The examiner must include rationale with all opinions, citing to supporting factual data as deemed appropriate. The rationale should include comment on the opinion by Dr. D.O. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Robert Cordingley, Associate Counsel