Citation Nr: 20032264 Decision Date: 05/07/20 Archive Date: 05/07/20 DOCKET NO. 18-13 284 DATE: May 7, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right hand disorder to include neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hand disorder to include neuropathy is remanded. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1967 to February 1970. This case comes to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Newman, Georgia. The Veteran provided testimony at a Board hearing in a March 2020 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in Roanoke, Virginia. In a February 2019 rating decision, service connection for pes planus with plantar fasciitis, plantar fibromas, and degenerative arthritis, bilateral feet, with plantar calcaneal enthesophyte of right foot was granted with an evaluation of 30 percent. This represents a full grant of the benefits sought, and the issue is no longer in appellate status. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The record contains no indication that the Veteran has disagreed with the initial rating or effective date assigned, thus, those matters are not in appellate status. See Grantham, 114 F. 3d at 1158. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right hand disorder to include neuropathy and a left hand disorder to include neuropathy is remanded. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Generally, a medical opinion should address the appropriate theories of entitlement. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123-24 (2007). And when a Veteran has provided competent lay statements of an in-service injury, the examiner must consider and address them when developing his rationale. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (holding that when the Veteran has provided lay testimony of an in-service injury, an examiner cannot ignore that lay evidence and base his or her opinion that there is no relationship to service on the absence of in-service corroborating medical records). The Veteran claimed in a March 2018 letter that he believed his neuropathy may have been due to being shot in the shoulder while on active duty in Vietnam. He stated that the tingling in his hands never ceased after the injury and eventually evolved into loss of feeling in both hands. The Veteran also asserted at the March 2020 hearing that he believed his bilateral hand neuropathy was due to exposure to herbicides, namely the arsenic based herbicide Agent Blue, though he also claimed to have been exposed to Agent Orange. The Veteran was tasked with spraying Agent Blue in order to defoliate the areas around their base. The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in February 2019. The examiner diagnosed bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy and opined that the Veteran’s bilateral peripheral neuropathy was not due to the Veteran’s duty to carry heavy packs under his MOS. The examiner did not provide an opinion that considered the effects of the bullet wound in the Veteran’s shoulder or herbicide exposure. The Veteran’s lay statements are competent and credible. He is competent to describe the events of his active duty service. The statements are also credible as according to the Veteran’s DD-214, the Veteran served in Vietnam and he received the combat infantryman’s badge indicating that he saw active ground combat. The Board finds the Veteran’s lay statements credible as they have been consistent throughout the appeal period. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (noting that the credibility of a witness may be impeached by a showing of interest, bias, inconsistent statements, and consistency with other evidence), aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As the examiner did not address the Veteran’s credible lay statements and contentions when formulating his opinion, the Board cannot assign it sufficient probative value and the issue must be remanded for an adequate opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address and dates of treatment or examination any relevant medical records. Subsequently, and after securing the proper authorizations where necessary, make arrangements to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran which are not already on file. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative. 2. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, obtain an opinion from an appropriate medical practitioner regarding the nature and etiology of his right hand and left hand disorders to include neuropathy. If the examiner determines an examination is necessary, one should be provided. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner must opine whether it is as least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s right and left hand disorders to include neuropathy: (i) had its onset during service; (ii) manifested to a compensable degree within one year after his separation from service; or (iii) is etiologically related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including as the residuals of a bullet wound in the shoulder or exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange and Agent Blue while deployed in Vietnam. The examiner must address all the Veteran’s competent lay statements of record, especially the Veteran’s March 2018 letter, March 2020 correspondence documents from the Veteran regarding his exposure to herbicides, the January 2019 VA examination, and the March 2020 hearing transcript. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ashley Ki 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.