Citation Nr: 21003151 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-40 428 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral wrist disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating for a bilateral ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1966 to August 1969. These current matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) via videoconference in February 2019. This matter was previously before the Board in September 2019 and remanded for additional development. After the development requested in the September 2019 remand was completed, the Veteran was provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in August 2020 memorializing the readjudication of the claim. In response to that SSOC, the Veteran submitted a new VA Form 9 substantive appeal form. It is unclear if the Veteran submitted this new Form 9 because he believed it was necessary to continue the appeal in this case or if he believed that he needed to begin a new appeal entirely. In either case, the Veteran’s appeal was automatically returned to the Board following the readjudication. Consequently, the filing of this form does not affect the continuation of the Veteran’s appeal. On the Form 9 that the Veteran recently filed, the Veteran requested a hearing before the VLJ. Again, it is unclear from the record if the Veteran believed that he was filing a new appeal and thus needed to request a new hearing. However, the matters currently before the Board in this appeal are a continuation of those matters that were previously before the Board in September 2019. As discussed above, the Veteran has already had a hearing as part of this continuing appeal. VA regulations permit only a single hearing following each notice of disagreement (NOD) filed by a claimant absent a showing of good cause why an additional hearing is necessary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7102, 7105(a), 7107; 38 C.F.R. § 20.700(a). Here, the Veteran has not submitted any cause or explanation as to why an additional hearing should be granted. Consequently, no additional hearing will be scheduled. Service connection for bilateral wrist, bilateral shoulder, bilateral ankle, bilateral hip, bilateral knee, bilateral elbow, cervical spine, and lumbar spine disabilities The Veteran contends that he has skeletal and joint conditions as a result of a fall he sustained during his service. In his testimony, the Veteran stated that he was placed on light duty or guard duty. The Veteran’s Service Treatment Records (STRs) do not record either the fall or being placed on light duty. However, the Veteran’s military personnel records have not been obtained. The Board finds that an additional remand is required in order to obtain the military personnel records to determine if those records contain any account of his reassignment to light duty. Additionally, the VA examinations regarding the Veteran’s musculoskeletal disabilities are not adequate. The rationale provided by the examiner as to why it is not at least as not that the Veteran’s musculoskeletal conditions are related to service relied exclusively on the length of time between the Veteran’s service and when the first evidence of treatment for these ailments occurred. The lack of contemporaneous corroborating medical evidence is not alone sufficient for finding a lack of a nexus. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Consequently, an addendum opinion is required. Service connection for a left eye disorder The Veteran also seeks entitlement to service connection for a left eye condition. His entrance examination notes that he had a childhood eye injury and documents decreased visual acuity in the left eye at the time of his induction. In January 2020, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s eye disability clearly and unmistakably predated his service and had clearly and unmistakably not been aggravated beyond its natural progression during service. However, the Veteran’s separation examination from 1969 documents degeneration of the macular area that was not documented in his 1966 induction examination. The examiner appears to address only the condition of the Veteran’s macula in the context of scarring which is the result of retinal surgery that was conducted in 2001. Thus, an addendum opinion addressing the 1969 separation examination more directly is required. Service connection for hypertension The Board cannot make a final decision on the claim for service connection for hypertension at this time. The rationale provided by the May 2020 VA examiner is only responsive to the question of whether this disability had its onset during service. An addendum opinion addressing the question of whether this condition is nonetheless related to service is required. Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s complete service personnel records. 2. Then, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s claimed musculoskeletal conditions (to include any diagnosed bilateral wrist, bilateral shoulder, bilateral ankle, bilateral hip, bilateral knee, bilateral elbow, cervical spine, and lumbar spine disabilities) are at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s service, to include the Veteran’s alleged in-service fall from a truck. The examiner should not rely solely on the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence or the length of time before these conditions were reported or memorialized in treatment records in the event that he/she provides any negative nexus opinions. 3. Also, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s left eye condition, which clearly and unmistakably predated his service and which was noted on his entrance examination, was at least as likely as not aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service. In addressing this question, the clinician should specifically address the report of macular degeneration documented in the 1969 separation examination but not documented in the 1966 induction examination. 4. Also, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s hypertension is at least as likely as not related to his service. The examiner should address this question even though the evidence indicates that the Veteran’s hypertension was not diagnosed in (and, in other words, did not begin during) his active service. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Steven H. Johnston, 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.