Citation Nr: 21002443 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-41 471 DATE: January 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a pinched nerve is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND In compliance with a remand from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), the Board remanded the case to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. See 10/14/2020 BVA Decision. On further review the Board finds incomplete compliance with the October 2020 remand directive. Hence, another remand is necessary. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability and entitlement to service connection for a pinched nerve are remanded. Service connection is in effect for a shrapnel fragment wound (SFW) with retained foreign body (RFB) at the right buttocks. See 12/26/1974 Rating Decision. The Veteran contends that his claimed right hip and pinched nerve disorders are due to the RFB. As a result of the assertions of record, to include a Joint Motion for Remand to the Court, one of the primary issues of the case is the precise location of the RFB. The October 2020 remand directed that before a medical examiner opined on whether there is a nexus between the claimed disorders and the RFB, that a qualified radiologist review the STRs, all of the relevant examination reports, to include all x-ray examination reports, and to opine, to the extent practical, on the precise location of the RFB. The examination report (11/05/2020 C&P Exam, 1st Entry) reflects that the examiner obtained a review and opinion from a Board Certified Radiologist, Punit C. Aghera, M.D. Per the examination report, however, Dr. Aghera did not review the STRs and all of the other x-ray examination reports of record. The examination report notes that only x-ray reports from 2018 were reviewed. Id. P. 3. Further, the wording of the examination reflects that the radiologist’s report of their review was referenced second-hand but the actual report itself was not made a part of the record. Hence, the record is not complete. Hence, the Board is again remanding for compliance. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Send the claims file to the clinician who provided the November 2020 nexus opinions, or an equally qualified clinician for clarification of the location of the RFB. The Board again specifically directs that before the clinician forms or prepares his opinion, that the claims file be provided to Dr. Aghera so that he can review the STRs, all of the relevant examination reports, to include all x-ray examination reports related to the RFB and to opine, to the extent practical, on the precise location of the RFB. Dr. Aghera is asked to be alert for any instances where prior radiologists may have used different terms to explain the same pathology or location and, if such instances exist, please provide clarification. Dr. Aghera’s report must be made a part of the claims file. If Dr. Aghera is no longer available, refer the request to an equally qualified radiologist. After the above is complete, the clinician is asked to provide an addendum wherein he addresses whether Dr. Aghera’s report changes in any way the opinions he rendered in November 2020 and the reasons why. All parties should review the Board’s October 2020 remand directives as well. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W. T. Snyder 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.