Citation Nr: 20002138 Decision Date: 01/09/20 Archive Date: 01/09/20 DOCKET NO. 16-61 975 DATE: January 9, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 2006 to May 2007. In May 2018, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. The Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. The Board finds that the AOJ has not substantially complied with the May 2018 Board remand directives. Specifically, the AOJ was directed to schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed left knee disability. This examiner was directed to identify all current and prior diagnoses of a left knee condition and when rendering an opinion, discuss the nexus opinion contained in the November 2016 letter from Dr. T.R.F., and consider and weigh the Veteran’s relevant lay statements, to include his statement during the July 2016 VA examination of feeling a “pop” in the right knee during obstacle course training during basic training. These directives were not completed by the AOJ. Accordingly, an addendum opinion is required. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle condition is remanded. The Board finds that the AOJ has not substantially complied with the May 2018 Board remand directives. Specifically, the AOJ was directed to schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral ankle disabilities. This examiner was directed to identify all current and prior diagnoses of a bilateral ankle condition and when rendering an opinion, discuss the nexus opinion contained in the November 2016 letter from Dr. T.R.F., discuss the May 2007 Report of Medical History wherein the evaluator noted the Veteran’s complaint of foot trouble was associated with his footwear, and consider and weigh the Veteran’s relevant lay statements. These directives were not completed by the AOJ. Accordingly, an addendum opinion is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s left knee disability is at least as likely as not related to his contentions regarding carrying excessive weight on his back during service. After reviewing the record, the examiner should: (a.) Identify all current and prior diagnoses of a left knee condition, to include chondromalacia with pain. (b.) Reconcile all prior diagnoses of a left knee condition with the current findings. If any prior diagnosis cannot be reconciled with the current findings, explain why. (c.) As to each current diagnosis and any prior diagnosis that cannot be reconciled with the current findings, opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability of greater) the Veteran’s claimed left knee disability was caused by or is otherwise related to his active duty service, to include carrying excessive weight during physical trainings in service, compensating for the Achilles tendonitis of the right ankle in service, and report of frequent “popping” in his right knee at the time of separation, and explain why. (d.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner MUST discuss the nexus opinion contained in the November 2016 letter from Dr. T.R.F. (e.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider and weigh the Veteran’s relevant lay statements, to include his statement during the July 2016 VA examination of feeling a “pop” in the right knee during an obstacle course training during basic training. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral ankle disabilities are at least as likely as not related to his active service. (a.) Identify all current and prior diagnoses of a right and/or left ankle condition, to include instability with pain. (b.) Reconcile all prior diagnoses of a right and/or left ankle condition with the current findings. If any prior diagnosis cannot be reconciled with the current findings, explain why (c.) As to each current diagnosis and any prior diagnosis that cannot be reconciled with the current findings, opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability of greater) the Veteran’s claimed right and/or left ankle disability was caused by or is otherwise related to his active duty service, to include carrying excessive weight during physical trainings and his diagnosis of Achilles tendonitis of the right ankle in service in 2006, and explain why. (d.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner MUST discuss the nexus opinion contained in the November 2016 letter from Dr. T.R.F. (e.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should discuss the May 2007 Report of Medical History wherein the evaluator noted the Veteran’s complaint of foot trouble was associated with his footwear. (f.) In rendering an opinion, the examiner should consider and weigh the Veteran’s relevant lay statements.   3. Once each of the above requests has been completed, to the extent possible, readjudicate the appeal. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R.A. Elliott II, Associate Counsel 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.