Citation Nr: 21001609
Decision Date: 01/11/21	Archive Date: 01/11/21

DOCKET NO. 14-01 199
DATE: January 11, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for Hepatitis C is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a headache disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

In September 2020, the Veteran’s claims were remanded so that he and his attorney could be provided with the curriculum vitae (CV) of the August and September 2019 VA examiners.  He is entitled to this information as part of VA’s duty to assist.  Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377 (2019).  In a September 2010 letter, instead of sending the examiners’ CVs, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) provided copies of the VA opinions.  

The Veteran is entitled to substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). If the Board proceeds with final disposition of an appeal and the remand orders have not been complied with, the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance.  Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271.  Because there has not been substantial compliance with the September 2020 remand directives, another remand is necessary.  The Board stresses the importance of carefully following the directives of this remand in order to allow for a final resolution of these issues.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Send of copy of the August 2019 and September 2019 VA examiners’ CVs to the Veteran and his attorney. 

2. Ensure that the directive specified in this remand has been implemented.  If they have not, appropriate corrective action must be undertaken before readjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

3. Then, readjudicate the claims.  If any decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response.  Then return the case to the Board. 

 

D. Martz Ames

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	R. Brunot, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.