Citation Nr: 21001962 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-29 605 DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a penis tear/erectile dysfunction is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran was a member of the Army National Guard from August 1984 to August 1990 and from December 1990 to May 1992, with periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA), as well as other periods of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). These matters are on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision. In April 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned. Subsequently, in September 2018, the Board remanded the appeal for additional evidentiary development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist condition is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is remanded. 7. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. 8. Entitlement to service connection for a penis tear/erectile dysfunction is remanded. The Veteran contends that his claimed disabilities were caused by an in-service fall. In August 1986, the Veteran fell from an M113 and was transported to a hospital for treatment. The Veteran submitted a line of duty report, which confirms that he fell 5 feet from an M113 and sustained a left ankle contusion. The report also shows that he was transported to Darnall Army Hospital for treatment. In April 2017, the Veteran testified that the symptoms associated with his disabilities began after his in-service fall and have persisted. The Veteran’s service treatment records show that he also sought treatment for a penis tear in connection with the accident. In September 2018, the Board remanded the appeal to afford the Veteran VA examinations, in-service hospitalization records, and to obtain medical opinions regarding the etiologies of the Veteran’s claimed disabilities. In August 2019, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) requested the Veteran’s inpatient treatment records from Darnall Army Hospital for the period of January 1986 to December 1986. In May 2020, the AOJ sent the letter to inform him that all efforts were made to obtain his in-patient treatment records, but the records were not located. The Veteran was invited to submit the missing records or provide additional information regarding the location of the records. In September 2019, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his claims. The Veteran reported that the symptoms associated with his disabilities began after his in-service fall and have persisted. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s right wrist strain, right ankle strain, left knee strain, and right knee strain were related to his military service because there were no in-service treatment records reflecting diagnoses or treatment. He also opined that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction, left ankle strain, and left wrist strain were less likely than not related to military service or the 1986 fall. The VA examiner explained that the Veteran only had one documented complaint of a left wrist condition and a left ankle condition during his active service. There were only 2 complaints of a penile condition during service. The VA examiner concluded that the conditions were most likely acute based upon a lack of medical documentation and that the claimed conditions were different than the conditions that were treated 34 years prior. The Veteran underwent a left shoulder examination. However, the VA examiner did not provide a medical opinion. The Board finds that a remand is required to obtain adequate medical opinions. The VA examiner’s opinions are predicated on a lack of medical documentation and do not provide any rationale related to the Veteran’s in-service fall or his lay statements regarding continued symptomatology since his in-service fall. Although the records associated with the Veteran’s in-service hospital treatment are unavailable, his personnel records confirm that he was treated at Darnall Army Hospital following his in-service fall. Furthermore, the VA examiner’s sole rationale for the medical opinions may not be the absence of medical documentation. A remand is required to obtain adequate medical opinions.   The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain addendum opinions from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s right wrist strain, right ankle strain, left knee strain, right knee strain, erectile dysfunction, left ankle strain, left wrist strain, and left shoulder disability are at least as likely as not related to his 1986 fall. The VA examiner is asked to address the Veteran’s lay statements of record, including the medical histories provided at the September 2019 VA examination regarding the persistence of his symptoms since his in-service fall. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. R. Watkins, 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.