Citation Nr: 20071995 Decision Date: 11/06/20 Archive Date: 11/06/20 DOCKET NO. 13-24 991 DATE: November 6, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent, to include a compensable evaluation for hoarseness for the period prior to March 19, 2018, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1967 to August 1969. A June 2015 Board decision denied the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for hoarseness, which the Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (hereinafter referred to as the “Court”). A November 2016 Court decision remanded the issue to the Board, finding both March 2012 and April 2014 VA examinations inadequate for adjudication purposes - failing to make specific findings of vocal cord conditions. An August 2017 Board decision remanded the issue for a new VA examination. In February 2020, after two inadequate examinations were conducted, the Board once again remanded the claim for further development, to include a VA examination. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent, to include a compensable evaluation for hoarseness for the period prior to March 19, 2018 is remanded. As previously noted, the Board remanded the claim in February 2020 for an adequate examination. Specifically, the Board instructed that the Veteran be scheduled with a medical professional qualified to conduct an ENT examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected hoarseness, and to provide a retrospective opinion regarding the nature and severity of the Veteran’s symptoms prior to March 19, 2018. RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary, and 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 was afforded a VA examination in August 2020 pursuant to remand instructions. The examiner stated that he is unable to render an accurate opinion about the ENT condition; thus, any findings from the examination report are deemed as unreliable. Unfortunately, while the Board regrets additional delay, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding the issue of an increased rating for hoarseness. Another remand is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA and private treatment records pertinent to the Veteran’s hoarseness claim. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a new VA examination (in-person) with a medical professional who is qualified to conduct an ENT examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected hoarseness. The examiner must: (1) provide specific findings in accordance with the diagnostic criteria outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6516. Namely, whether the Veteran has hoarseness with inflammation of cords or mucous membranes; or a higher level of impairment, to include thickening or nodules of cords, polyps, submucous infiltration, or pre-malignant changes on biopsy. Why or why not? (2) provide a retrospective opinion (if possible) on whether it is as likely as not (50 percent or more probability) that, prior to March 19, 2018, the Veteran had hoarseness with inflammation of cords or mucous membranes; or a higher level of impairment, to include thickening or nodules of cords, polyps, submucous infiltration, or pre-malignant changes on biopsy. Why or why not? If the retrospective opinion is not possible, the examiner should indicate why that is so. A complete rationale for any opinion rendered must be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resort to speculation he or she should explain why. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.