Citation Nr: 21001618 Decision Date: 01/11/21 Archive Date: 01/11/21 DOCKET NO. 14-35 428 DATE: January 11, 2021 REMANDED Eligibility for assistance in acquiring specially adapted housing is remanded. Eligibility for a special home adaptation grant is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1970 to June 1979. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Offices (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a June 2017 video conference hearing. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the file. The Board remanded the matters twice—in March 2018 and April 2020. Frustratingly, the Board finds that the April 2020 remand directives have not been substantially complied with and therefore another remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The remand directives required the Veteran to be afforded an examination, if the October 2019 VA examiner was unavailable. The directives also required the examiner providing the opinion to provide an opinion responsive to a specific question and to provide adequate rationale. A medical opinion was provided in May 2020. The opinion was authored by an examiner other than the October 2019 VA examiner. It appears to be from an examiner outside VA. There is no indication that this examiner performed an examination of the Veteran. Additionally, he was nonresponsive to the one question posed in the directives. Instead of responding to the question regarding the loss or loss of use of one lower extremity together with residuals of organic disease, he checked a box indicating that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. Also, his rationale misstates the evidence as he contends there is no evidence to support the claim that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities require the constant use of a wheelchair or walker. The Veteran provided detailed testimony describing the impact this service-connected disabilities have on him to include his need for constant use of a walker or wheelchair. Lastly, the only rationale provided even remotely specific to the question asked was just copy and pasted from the rationale the October 2019 VA examiner provided. Given the aforementioned, another remand is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claim file to the VA examiner that provided the opinion in October 2019 so that he may provide an addendum opinion with detailed rationale. If the October 2019 VA examiner is unavailable, then the AOJ must schedule an examination with an appropriate clinician. This examination can be in person or virtual. The examiner should review the claim file (including this remand) and note such review was conducted. Based on review of the record, the examiner should address the following: Please provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s service connected disabilities have caused the loss or loss of use of one lower extremity together with residuals of organic disease or injury which so affect the functions of balance or propulsion as to preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair. The examiner is asked to explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached. If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. 2. The AOJ should review the opinion to ensure compliance with the directives. 3. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Talamantes 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.