Citation Nr: 18160294 Decision Date: 12/27/18 Archive Date: 12/26/18 DOCKET NO. 12-00 916 DATE: December 27, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right shin splints is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for left shin splints is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Marine Corps from August 2006 to August 2010. In June 2016, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record. While additional delay is unfortunate, the Board finds further development is required before the Veteran’s claims are decided. Initially, the Board notes that a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In September 2016, the Board remanded the claim for another VA examination. The Board instructed the VA examiner to determine whether the Veteran’s bilateral ankle sprains were manifestations of her shin splints. A VA examination was provided in February 2017. The examiner noted the Veteran’s reports of ankle sprains due to shin splints. However, the examiner did not provide an opinion with supporting rationale as to whether the ankle sprains were related to her service-connected bilateral shin splints. Accordingly, the Board finds that another VA examination is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 at 271. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO or the AMC should undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran’s claims. If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Then, the RO or the AMC should afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to fully assess the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral shin splints. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. The examiner must address whether the Veteran’s ankle sprains are manifestations of his service-connected bilateral shin splints. The examiner must provide all information required for rating purposes, to specifically include both active and passive range of motion testing, as well as weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing range of motion assessments. In addition, the examiner must determine the extent of any additional limitation of joint motion (in degrees) due to weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, or pain during flare-ups and/or with repeated use. In doing so, the examiner must consider and discuss all procurable and assembled data such as the frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, and the severity of the flare-ups, and then provide an assessment of the functional loss during flares, if possible in degrees of motion lost. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner is unable to provide any requested opinions, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. (Continued on the next page)   3. Then, the RO or the AMC should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the Veteran and her representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. ANTHONY C. SCIRE’, JR. Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. N. Nolley, Associate Counsel