Citation Nr: 21000265 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 11-02 979 DATE: January 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from May 1986 to June 1990. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2008 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2016, the Board remanded the Veteran’s appeal to the RO for further evidentiary development. In May 2019, the Board remanded the Veteran’s appeal again in order to obtain a medical opinion that considered the Veteran’s report of a popping of his elbow in his May 1990 separation medical history as well as his assertions of his right elbow popping since leaving the service. The Veteran contends that his right elbow condition should be service connected because it began in service, it has continued since, and has worsened over the years.   Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow condition. While the Board regrets the additional delay, the Veteran’s claim must be remanded. The case law is clear that once the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim, he must provide an adequate one. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Furthermore, a remand confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In May 2016, the Board remanded the Veteran’s appeal and directed the RO to obtain a VA examination of the Veteran’s right elbow. A VA examination was performed in July 2016, and the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s elbow condition was less likely than not caused by or related to his active duty service because his service treatment records did not reflect any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment concerning the right elbow. The May 2019 Board decision recognized that the July 2016 examiner did not acknowledge that the Veteran had complained of popping in his right elbow upon separation. As such, the Board remanded the appeal and directed that, in rendering an opinion, “the examiner should consider the May 1990 separation medical history in which the Veteran reported occasional elbow popping. The examiner should also consider the Veteran’s assertions of his right elbow popping in service and since leaving the service.” Additionally, the remand directed that “a complete rationale for all opinions must be provided.” The Veteran was afforded another in person VA elbow examination in November 2019, and the examiner completed the examination report in December 2019. The examiner opined that it is less likely as not that the Veteran’s right elbow condition, including olecranon bursitis, is service connected because there are no medical records showing a diagnosis, or treatment for the right elbow condition, while the Veteran was still in service, other than the separation exam in May 1990, indicating occasional elbow popping. In providing the opinion the examiner failed to comply with the May 2019 Board remand directives because the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s reports that he has continued to have popping in his elbow since his discharge and that it has worsened over the years. See Id. As such, the examiner did not fully consider the lay statements of the Veteran. In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Furthermore, the examiner’s opinion is based wholly on a lack of medical evidence documenting a diagnosis and treatment for the Veteran’s right elbow condition. A lack of evidence cannot be corroborating to conclude that there is no relationship between the Veteran’s current disability and his military service. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). Therefore, as the examiner’s opinion was not supported by sufficient rationale it did not reasonably comply with the May 2019 Board remand directive. Accordingly, remand is necessary for an addendum VA opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from June 2020 to the present. 2. After obtaining any additional records, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s right elbow disability. If the clinician determines that an examination of the Veteran is necessary to provide the opinion, then such should be scheduled. The clinician must opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any right elbow disability, including olecranon bursitis, is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In rendering this opinion, the examiner should consider the May 1990 separation medical history in which the Veteran reported occasional elbow popping. The examiner should also consider the Veteran’s assertions of his right elbow popping in service and since leaving the service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and treatment and that his reports, including his reports as to the onset and chronic nature of his symptoms, must be considered, along with the other evidence of record, in formulating the requested opinion. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Temple, 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.