Citation Nr: 21003386 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 14-02 281 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED The claim of service connection for left shoulder condition is remanded. The claim of service connection for a low back condition is remanded. The claim of service connection for a left foot condition is remanded. The claim of service connection for a right foot condition is remanded. The claim of service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. The claim of service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service in the Army from March 1972 to February 1974 and subsequent service in the Army Reserves and Air Force National Guard; as discussed below, the periods of service in the Army Reserves and Air Force National Guard are yet to be verified. See DD Form 214; September 2011 VA Form 21-526. In October 2017 and August 2019, the Board remanded for further development. Upon further review of the evidence of the claims file, the Board finds that another remand is warranted as discussed below for additional development. 1. Service connection for left shoulder condition is remanded. 2. Service connection for a low back condition is remanded. 3. Service connection for a left foot condition is remanded. 4. Service connection for a right foot condition is remanded. 5. Service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. 6. Service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. The Board notes that the questions of “whether an examiner is competent and whether he has rendered an adequate exam are two separate inquiries.” See Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Absent some challenge to the expertise of a VA expert, there is no requirement that VA present affirmative evidence of a medical professional’s qualifications in every case as a precondition for the Board’s reliance upon that person’s opinion, and the Board is entitled to assume the competence of a VA examiner unless the competence is challenged. Sickels v. Shinseki, 643 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Rizzo v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009). However, this presumption is rebutted when the Veteran raises the issue of competency. See Francway, 930 F.3d at 1380. After the Veteran challenges the competency of a medical examiner, “[t]he Board must then make factual findings regarding the qualifications and provide reasons and bases for concluding whether or not the medical examiner was competent to provide the opinion.” Id. at 1381. According to the December 2020 Appellate Brief, the Veteran’s representative challenged the competency of the VA examiner who administered the VA examinations noted above; and requested the examiner’s curriculum vitae (CV) and all known qualifications to determine the adequacy of the examiner’s expertise, pursuant to Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Board notes that the Veteran was afforded VA examinations and/or obtained opinions in April 2019 and June 2020. Given the representative’s challenge to the examiner’s qualifications, the duty to assist mandates that the claimant “has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner.” Id. Accordingly, on remand, to the extent possible, the CV for the VA examiners and any additional information regarding his/her qualifications should be obtained, associated with the record, and provided to the Veteran and his representative for review. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Contact the VA examiners who provided all VA examinations in April 2019 and June 2020 related to the Veteran’s service connection claims, and request that they provide a copy of their CV. Upon receipt of such, associate them with the record and provide the Veteran and his representative a copy thereof. If the requested CV is not obtainable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified and the reasons for such should be documented in the record. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Yoo, 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.