Citation Nr: 20041853 Decision Date: 06/18/20 Archive Date: 06/18/20 DOCKET NO. 13-13 408 DATE: June 18, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a service connection for a bilateral hand disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1977 to May 1986. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). At such time, the Veteran was provided with information on how to obtain a representative. To date, the Veteran has not designated an individual or Veterans Service Organization as his representative. Therefore, the Board recognizes the Veteran as proceeding pro se in this appeal. The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) during an April 2015 hearing. In March 2018 and April 2020, the Veteran was notified that the VLJ who presided over his hearing was no longer available and that he had a right to another optional Board hearing. However, the Veteran returned form indicating that he did not want another Board hearing. In June 2015 and May 2018, the Board remanded the case for additional development and it now returns for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to a service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder. 2. Entitlement to a service connection for a bilateral hand disorder. The Veteran contends that his bilateral hand and ankle disorders are due to his military service. At his April 2015 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his ankle hurts when the weather becomes cold and his current problems with his ankle are residuals of the injury he sustained during service. The Veteran further reported that his arthritis of his hands was due to stress from service. In December 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral hand and ankle disorders. At such time, the examiner noted the Veteran’s history and military service from over 32 years ago. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s disorder was incurred in or was caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. As rationale, the examiner explained that there were no medical records indicating that the Veteran’s first ankle complaint in 1977 to the present had any chronicity. The examiner further explained that there were no medical records indicating that the Veteran had any hand injury in service, and he did not have medical records showing chronicity from service to the present. Therefore, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s disorders were less likely than not related to his injuries in service. The Board notes that the examiner did not address the Veteran’s reports of symptoms since service, and the rationale for an examiner’s opinion cannot be based solely on the absence of treatment records. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); (an examination must consider lay evidence of in-service incurrence or continuity of symptomatology since service). Therefore, addendum opinions addressing such matters are necessary to decide the claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the record to an appropriate examiner and obtain addendum opinions for the Veteran’s bilateral hand and ankle disorders. The record and a copy of this Remand must be made available to the examiner. The need for an additional examination of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner. Following a review of the record, please address the following inquiry: (A) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral ankle disorder had its onset in, or is otherwise related to any injury or event, during service, to include his in-service complaints? In rendering the opinion, the examiner should consider that the Veteran’s service treatment records reveal that he was diagnosed with cellulitis of the both ankles in April 1977. In March 1978, the Veteran was treated for a mild sprain of his right ankle. In July 1979, the Veteran was treated for a left ankle sprain. (B) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s bilateral hand disorder had its onset in, or is otherwise related to any injury or event, during service? In offering an opinion, the examiner must acknowledge that the Veteran is competent to that he experienced symptoms in-service and has experienced symptoms since service. The examiner is advised that the sole basis for a negative opinion cannot be the fact that the Veteran’s service treatment records are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnoses referable to the claimed disorders.   The rationale for any opinion should be provided. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brennae L. Brooks, 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.