Citation Nr: 19136367 Decision Date: 05/10/19 Archive Date: 05/10/19 DOCKET NO. 14-16 856 DATE: May 10, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right hand disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1955 to May 1959. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. In August 2017, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a Board video conference hearing. This matter was previously remanded for a medical addendum in November 2017. The case is again before the Board for appellate review. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107 (a)(2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900 (c) (2017). 1. Entitlement to service connection for right hand disability is remanded. In an August 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his right-hand pain developed in service. Specifically, he stated that his hands started to hurt when he was doing mechanical work on the ship. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2017. After review of the Veteran’s claim file, the VA examiner rendered a negative opinion against the Veteran’s claim without addressing whether his in-service injuries and reports of his swollen right-hand was related to his current right-hand disability. The Board remanded the Veteran’s claim and sought an addendum to clarify whether the Veteran’s in-service complaints and treatments of his swollen right-hand were related to his current complaint of right-hand pain. Upon remand, the same VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s swollen hand injury was related to his current complaints of right-hand pain. The VA examiner further stated that the Veteran had an encapsulated calcified mass to the second digit at the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint of the right hand; this was not seen on the images of January 10, 2002. He then stated that there was no known wrist injury, and, therefore, it was not possible for any “swollen hand” to have been presented until after this date. He further stated that the original February 2014 VA opinion was still relevant and adequate. Unfortunately, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the previous remand directives regarding the issue of his right hand disability. The VA examiner’s opinion and addendum did not take into consideration the Veteran’s swollen right hand complaints and injuries in service nor whether they were related to his current right hand pain. Regrettably, the Board finds that further remand is necessary in this case. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives; where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA or private treatment records. Request that the Veteran assist with locating these records, if possible. Associate these records with the claims file. 2. Forward the claims file and a copy of this remand to a new VA examiner to obtain an opinion addressing the likely etiology of the Veteran’s right-hand disability. After review of the Veteran’s claims file, the VA examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater), the Veteran’s current right-hand disability is related to any of his right-hand complaints in his 1956 through 1959 service treatment records. If so, explain how? (Continued on the next page)   A detailed rationale is requested for all opinions provided. If an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, provide an explanation as to why this is so, and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. Matthew Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Xiong, Attorney Advisor The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.