Citation Nr: 19123797 Decision Date: 04/02/19 Archive Date: 03/29/19 DOCKET NO. 15-32 090 DATE: April 2, 2019 ORDER The reduction of the evaluation for residual fracture, left ankle with degenerative changes (left ankle disability) from 30 percent to 10 percent was improper, and the 30 percent rating is restored, effective March 1, 2015. REMANDED The claim of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected left ankle disability is remanded. The claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is also remanded for additional development. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The December 2014 rating decision on appeal, implemented a July 2014 proposal and reduced the rating for the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability from 30 percent to 10 percent, effective March 1, 2015. 2. The reduction for the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability was based on one VA examination, and the 30 percent rating was in effect for more than five years (from July 21, 2005). CONCLUSION OF LAW The reduction of the rating for the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability from 30 percent to 10 percent, effective March 1, 2015, was not in compliance with the regulatory provisions governing such actions, and was not proper; restoration of the 30 percent rating from the date of reduction is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(e), 3.344. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Preliminary Matters The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Marine Corps from June 1967 to March 1969. The Veteran received the Purple Heart Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal, among other commendations. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, in January 2012, the Veteran filed a claim of entitlement to a TDIU, asserting, in pertinent part, that his service-connected left ankle disability rendered him unemployable. Accordingly, the increased rating claim for the left ankle disability is considered part of the Veteran’s TDIU claim. In an April 2012 decisional letter, the RO, in pertinent part, continued the 30 percent rating for the Veteran’s left ankle disability, and also denied entitlement to a TDIU. The record reflects that, thereafter, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to evaluate the severity of his service-connected left ankle disability. Then, in a July 2014 rating decision, the RO indicated that a special review of the claims file was mandated on March 10, 2014, and as a result, reevaluated the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability. In this decision, the RO proposed to reduce the disability rating for the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability from 30 percent to 10 percent. In a December 2014 rating decision, the RO reduced the left ankle disability rating from 30 percent to 10 percent, effective March 1, 2015. In May 2015, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD), appealing the rating reduction of his service-connected left ankle disability. The Board recognizes that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU was previously denied by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). However, the claim for a TDIU remains in appellate status, as it is part and parcel to the instant increased rating issue on appeal. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Based on the above-discussed procedural history, the issues have been stated accordingly on the title page. In November 2018, the Veteran and his spouse testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims file. As a final matter, the Board notes that, in November 2018, the Veteran submitted a disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) relating to the increased rating claim for his service-connected left ankle disability. He did not explicitly request initial consideration by the AOJ. Accordingly, such consideration is waived pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7105(e). In any event, the AOJ will nevertheless have the opportunity to review the new evidence, as the increased rating claim is remanded herein. Rating Reduction The Veteran contends that the reduction in the disability rating of his left ankle disability from 30 percent to 10 percent, effective March 1, 2015, was improper. In any case involving a rating reduction, the fact-finder must ascertain, based upon a review of the entire record, whether the evidence shows an actual change in the disability and whether the examination reports reflecting such change are based upon a thorough examination. VA regulations provide for specific notice requirements in instances where a reduction in rating is considered. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). When a rating reduction is considered and the lower rating would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments currently being made, a rating proposing the reduction must be prepared and mailed to the Veteran’s address of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). A proposed rating decision should set forth all of the material facts and reasons for the proposed reduction. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). The Veteran must be given 60 days to present additional evidence showing that compensation payments should be continued at the present level. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). In this case, the record reflects that the RO complied with the procedures required under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). Thus, the analysis proceeds to whether the reduction was factually warranted. A reduction of a rating generally must be supported by the evidence on file at the time of the reduction, but pertinent post-reduction evidence favorable to restoring the rating must also be considered. Dofflemeyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 277 (1992). If there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material issue, all reasonable doubt shall be resolved in favor of the Veteran. In other words, a rating reduction must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a); Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413 (1993). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) require a review of the entire record of examinations and the medical history to ascertain whether the recent examination was full and complete. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a). Examinations less full and complete than those on which payments were authorized or continued will not be used as a basis of reduction. Ratings will not be reduced on any one examination, except where all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated, and it is reasonably certain that any material improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344. If doubt remains, after according due consideration to all the evidence developed by the several items discussed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a), the rating agency will continue the rating in effect, citing the former diagnosis with the new diagnosis in parentheses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(b). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(b) apply to ratings which have continued for long periods at the same level, for five years or more. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344. They do not apply to disabilities which have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. Reexaminations disclosing improvement, physical or mental, in those disabilities will warrant reduction in rating. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c); Collier v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 247 (1992). Here, the Veteran’s left ankle disability was service connected in a June 1969 rating decision, effective March 29, 1969. An initial noncompensable disability rating was assigned. In a March 1998 rating decision, the noncompensable disability rating for the Veteran’s left ankle disability was increased to 20 percent, effective October 8, 1997. The 20 percent rating was continued in rating decisions dated July 2004 and October 2005. In a March 2006 decisional letter, the RO increased the 20 percent rating for the Veteran’s left ankle disability to 30 percent, effective July 21, 2005. The 30 percent rating was continued in an April 2012 decisional letter. In a July 2014 rating decision, the RO proposed to reduce the disability rating for the left ankle disability from 30 percent to 10 percent. Thereafter, in a December 2014 rating decision (the rating decision on appeal), the RO reduced the disability rating for the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability from 30 percent to 10 percent, effective March 1, 2015. The Board notes that the 30 percent rating for the left ankle disability had been in effect for a period of more than five years. Consequently, this rating could not be reduced without compliance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) and (b) regarding stabilization of ratings. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c); Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282, 286-87 (1992). The stabilization of ratings regulation provides that rating agencies will handle cases affected by change of medical findings or diagnosis to produce the greatest degree of stability of disability evaluations consistent with the laws and VA regulations governing disability compensation and pension. It is essential that the entire record of examinations and the recent examination is full and complete, including all special examinations indicated as a result of general examination and the entire case history. Examinations less full and complete than those on which payments were authorized or continued will not be used as a basis of reduction. Ratings on account of diseases subject to temporary or episodic improvement, e.g., manic depressive or other psychotic reaction, epilepsy, bronchial asthma, gastric or duodenal ulcer, many skin diseases, etc., will not be reduced on any one examination, except in those instances where all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated. Moreover, though material improvement in the physical or mental condition is clearly reflected, the rating agency will consider whether the evidence makes it reasonably certain that the improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a); Kitchens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 320 (1995); Brown (Kevin) v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413, 416-21 (1993). The Board notes that it has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s record with an emphasis on the evidence relevant to the issue on appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Hence, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence, as deemed appropriate, and the Board’s analysis will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or does not show, as to the claim. The May 1969 VA examination used to initially grant service connection and rate the Veteran’s left ankle disability reflects a medical opinion concerning the severity of the Veteran’s disability. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed full range of motion; this warranted a noncompensable disability rating. In December 1997, the Veteran underwent another VA examination for his left ankle disability. On examination, the Veteran reported that his left ankle ached a lot and that he had decreased range of motion, especially when he moved the foot up and down. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed plantar dorsiflexion to 0 degrees and plantar flexion to 30 degrees. The examiner noted that lateral and medial rotation of the left foot was minimal, and that the Veteran was unable to do that to more than 15 degrees at best. Following the December 1997 VA examination, the RO issued a rating decision in March 1998, which, in pertinent part, increased the noncompensable rating for the left ankle disability to 20 percent, effective October 8, 1997. In April 2004, the Veteran filed a claim of entitlement to an increased rating for his service-connected left ankle disability, asserting that the disability had worsened in severity. Accordingly, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2004 to assess the severity of his left ankle disability. The Veteran reported that, since the last examination in December 1997, there was an increase in pain, which had become constant. He further reported an increase in degree and duration of stiffness, as well as an increase in degree and duration of swelling. He denied specific episodes of flare-ups; however, he indicated that his left ankle was aggravated with increased walking distances greater than two blocks. It was also aggravated when he performed simple chores, such as lawn work, as well as during repetitive flexion at the ankle, such as walking up or down inclines. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed plantar dorsiflexion to 20 degrees, plantar flexion to 45 degrees, inversion to 30 degrees, and eversion to 5 degrees. Following the April 2004 VA examination, the RO issued a rating decision in July 2004, which, in pertinent part, continued the 20 percent rating for the left ankle disability. Then, in July 2005, the Veteran filed another claim of entitlement to an increased rating for his service-connected left ankle disability, again asserting that the disability had worsened in severity. The Veteran underwent another VA examination to assess the severity of his left ankle in August 2005. On examination, the Veteran reported constant pain, diminished mobility, and decreased range of motion with plantar flexion. He indicated that he had no significant interval trauma to the left ankle. He denied specific flare-ups; however, he stated that his left ankle limited his standing to about 15 minutes and walking to less than three to four blocks, without developing an exaggerated limp. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed plantar dorsiflexion to 0 degrees and plantar flexion to 45 degrees. X-rays of the left ankle revealed mild degenerative joint disease of the talonavicular joint and calcaneal enthesophytes. In a March 2006 decisional letter, the RO increased the 20 percent rating of the left ankle disability to 30 percent, effective July 21, 2005. Thereafter, as previously indicated, in January 2012, the Veteran filed a claim of entitlement to a TDIU, asserting, in pertinent part, that his service-connected left ankle disability rendered him unemployable. Accordingly, the increased rating claim for the left ankle disability is considered part of the Veteran’s TDIU claim. As a result, the Veteran underwent another VA examination to assess the severity of his left ankle disability in February 2012. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported constant pain and diminished mobility of the left ankle. He reported flare-ups, stating that flares occurred with uneven ground. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed plantar flexion to 30 degrees, with pain noted at 30 degrees, and plantar dorsiflexion to 10 degrees, with pain noted at 10 degrees. In an April 2012 decisional letter, the RO, in pertinent part, continued the 30 percent rating for the left ankle disability, noting that, although the medical evidence showed improvement, such did not show sustained improvement. In this case, the reduction was based on one VA examination, specifically the June 2014 VA examination. On examination, the Veteran reported no new injuries to the left ankle and that the ankle was about the same, presumably in comparison to the level of severity assessed in the February 2012 VA examination. The Veteran reported flare-ups, stating that he experienced such during prolonged walking and standing. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed plantar flexion to 30 degrees, with pain noted at 30 degrees, and plantar dorsiflexion to 10 degrees, with pain noted at 10 degrees; notably, the same results as those reflected in the February 2012 VA examination report. The examiner did not provide an opinion as to the severity or improvement of the Veteran’s left ankle disability. Following the June 2014 VA examination, in a July 2014 rating decision, the RO, proposed a reduction of the evaluation of the Veteran’s left ankle disability. The rating decision shows that, essentially, the RO solely based its decision of the proposed reduction on the June 2014 VA examination. The record has since been supplemented by an August 2015 VA examination report and a November 2018 DBQ completed by a private physician for evaluations of the Veteran’s left ankle disability. During the August 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his left ankle ached all the time. He stated that at times, “it hurt rather bad.” He indicated that he was unable to walk long distance and that he could not walk up inclines very well because his ankle did not bend well. Range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed plantar dorsiflexion to 10 degrees and plantar flexion to 15 degrees. The Veteran reported flare-ups, indicating that such occurred especially when walking up/down stairs and inclines. However, the examiner noted that it was not possible to express any such additional limitation due to pain, weakness or incoordination in terms of degrees of additional motion loss since the Veteran was not currently experiencing a flare-up; thus, requiring him to resort to mere speculation. The examiner did not provide an opinion on the severity or improvement of the Veteran’s left ankle disability. The November 2018 DBQ of the left ankle shows that range of motion testing of the left ankle revealed plantar dorsiflexion to 2 degrees and plantar flexion to 10 degrees; thus, compared to the previous VA examination reports, the Veteran’s range of motion had markedly decreased. The Veteran reported flare-ups, indicating that walking was more difficult and painful. He further reported that it was difficult to walk up/down stairs, walk on inclines and uneven ground, and walk long distances. The private physician did not provide an opinion as to whether pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with flare-ups. However, the private physician noted that the Veteran’s left ankle injury had gradually worsened. As previously stated, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c), the provisions apply to ratings that have continued for five years or more, and do not apply to disabilities that have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. In those cases, reexaminations disclosing improvement will warrant reduction. Here, as discussed above, the 30 percent rating for the Veteran’s left ankle disability was in effect for more than five years. At the very least, in light of the fact that only the June 2014 examination was considered in the RO’s decision for reduction of the rating, these circumstances presented a doubtful case. The Board notes that, compared to the previous February 2012 examination, the June 2014 examination report reflects similar objective results; moreover, subjective complaints remained the same. Therefore, the Board finds that the June 2014 examination report is not sufficient to show actual improvement in the Veteran’s ability to function. Further, in various statements and argument throughout the appeal period, the Veteran has asserted that he has not had improvement with his left ankle disability since the initial award of service connection. In fact, he has indicated that this condition has gradually worsened, and that at the time of separation from active service, he was told that his left ankle would get worse. See January 2012 Veteran statement; August 2015 Veteran statement; and, November 2018 Hearing Transcript at pg. 11. Furthermore, while the August 2015 VA examination report and November 2018 DBQ were not considered by the RO at the time of the rating reduction, the Board notes that the reports reflect that, since the prior examinations conducted in 1997, 2004, 2005, 2012, and 2014, the Veteran’s subjective complaints have remained the same. Moreover, the Veteran’s range of motion of his left ankle has gradually decreased. Therefore, even after the most recent VA examination in August 2015 and the DBQ completed by the private physician in November 2018, the Board finds that the evidence of record continues to show that there has been no actual improvement in the Veteran’s ability to function. The Board also notes that the other evidence of record, to include additional statements of the Veteran, VA records, and private medical records, cast serious doubt upon whether there was a permanent improvement in this disability under the ordinary conditions of daily life. See id. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not reflect that at the time of the reduction, the Veteran had the type of improvement in his service-connected left ankle disability that would warrant a reduction in the assigned disability rating, particularly as it had been in effect for more than five years. Furthermore, the additional evidence associated with the record since the time of the reduction shows that the Veteran’s left ankle disability has not demonstrated actual improvement in his ability to function. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the restoration of the 30 percent disability rating for the left ankle disability from the effective date of the reduction is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Although further delay is regrettable, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in this case to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Increased Rating Claim The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an increased disability rating for his service-connected left ankle disability. The record reflects that the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination for this disability in August 2015, nearly four years ago. During the November 2018 hearing, the Veteran stated that this disability had worsened in severity. See November 2018 Hearing Transcript at pg. 11. He indicated that due to his left ankle, he is unable to participate in recreational activities that he once enjoyed. See id. at pg. 15. Additionally, he stated that his range of motion is more limited today than it was at the time of his last VA examination in 2015. See id. at pg. 24. Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran also asserted that the previous VA examinations conducted in 2014 and 2015 were inadequate, as the examiners did not conduct all of the necessary testing during the examinations. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a more thorough and contemporaneous examination of the service-connected left ankle is warranted in order to ensure that the record reflects the current severity of this disability. In addition, the Board notes that, prior to the August 2015 VA examination, the Veteran underwent VA examinations in February 2012 and June 2014. Following these examinations, two precedential opinions were issued by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). These opinions necessitate retroactive opinions in this case. On July 5, 2016, the Court, in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. Thus, the Court’s holding in Correia interprets 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 to establish additional requirements that must be met prior to finding that a VA examination is adequate. The examination reports dated February 2012, June 2014, and August 2015 do not reflect that the examiners addressed all of the Correia requirements. Specifically, the examination reports include only active range of motion findings and do not include range of motion findings for passive range of motion. Moreover, with specific regard to the August 2015 VA examination report, while the examination reported pain on motion, the point during range of motion where pain started was not noted. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the February 2012, June 2014, and August 2015 VA examinations are inadequate. Furthermore, the Board notes that the Court issued another decision in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017) concerning the adequacy of VA orthopedic examinations. In Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017), the Court held that when a VA examiner is asked to opine as to additional functional loss during flare-ups of a musculoskeletal disability, such opinion must be based on all procurable and assembled medical evidence, to include eliciting relevant information from the veteran as to the flare (i.e., the frequency, duration, characteristics, severity, or functional loss), and such opinion cannot be based on the insufficient knowledge of the specific examiner. In this case, during the February 2012, June 2014, and August 2015 VA examinations, the Veteran reported experiencing flare-ups of the left ankle. The June 2014 examiner indicated that pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination did not significantly limit functional ability with flare-ups. However, the February 2012 and August 2015 examination reports did not provide an opinion as to whether pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with flare-ups. Thus, the Board notes that the February 2012 and August 2015 VA examinations regarding the Veteran’s left ankle disability do not comply with the requirements of Sharp. Furthermore, the Board notes that the November 2018 DBQ of the left ankle also does not include range of motion findings of passive range of motion, nor does it provide an opinion as to whether pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with flare-ups. Thus, in light of the foregoing reasons, the Board cannot properly assess the functional impairment caused by the left ankle disability. Consequently, as the previous examination reports for the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability and the November 2018 DBQ of the left ankle do not fully satisfy the requirements of Correia, 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, and Sharp, a new examination, to include retroactive opinions, are necessary to decide the claim. Entitlement to TDIU The Board finds that the issue of the Veteran’s entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim remanded herein. Accordingly, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU must be held in abeyance pending adjudication of the aforementioned claim. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998) (matters are “inextricably intertwined” where action on one matter could have a “significant impact” on the other). Finally, on remand, the AOJ should make appropriate efforts to ensure that all pertinent private treatment records and any updated VA records are associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records that are not already associated with the claims file. If any record identified cannot be obtained, the Veteran and his representative should be notified of this in writing, to include all efforts taken by VA to attempt to obtain any such record. The Veteran should also be offered the option to provide any such record himself. 2. After obtaining any outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current level of severity of his service-connected left ankle disability. The Veteran’s claims file and a copy of this remand should be provided to the examiner and the examination report should reflect that these items were reviewed. The examiner should provide all information required for rating purposes, to specifically include range of motion of each ankle in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and non-weight-bearing. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The examiner must report whether there is a lack of normal endurance or functional loss due to pain and pain on use, including that experienced during flare ups; whether there is weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination; and the effects of the service-connected disability on the Veteran’s ordinary activity, including his ability to work. The examiner should determine whether the Veteran’s range of motion results from the February 2012, June 2014, and August 2015 VA examinations, as well as the November 2018 DBQ would have been reduced if tested in both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing. To the examiner’s best ability, the additional range of motion loss should be described in degrees. If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinion in this case, he or she should clearly explain the basis for this decision. The examiner should also ask the Veteran to identify the severity, frequency, duration, precipitating and alleviating factors, and extent of functional impairment resulting from flare-ups. The examiner should identify the extent of the Veteran’s functional loss during flare-ups and offer range of motion estimates based on that information. If the examiner cannot provide the above-requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should state whether all procurable medical evidence had been considered, to specifically include the Veteran’s description as to the severity, frequency, duration of the flare-ups and his description as to the extent of functional loss during a flare-up and after repetitive use over time; whether the inability is due to the limits of medical community or the limits of the examiner’s medical knowledge; and whether there is additional evidence, which if obtained, would permit the opinion to be provided. The examiner should also specifically interview the Veteran about the nature of the flare-ups that he reported in the February 2012 and August 2015 VA examinations, as well as the November 2018 DBQ; assess this impairment during flare-ups, and provide a retroactive opinion as to any additional functional loss during flare-ups at that time, and provide an estimate of that loss in terms of degrees reduction in range of motion. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If an opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what additional evidence, if any, would allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. After completing all indicated development, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated, to include the issue of entitlement to TDIU, based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is remanded to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Y. MacDonald, Associate Counsel