Citation Nr: 21003825 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 14-36 373 DATE: January 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served active duty in the United States Air Force from April 1994 to September 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. The matter was previously remanded by the Board in March 2018, and January 2020, and July 2020 for additional development and now returns to the Board for further appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. While further delay is unfortunate, the Board finds that remand is once again warranted before a decision can be rendered. As an initial matter, a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. In the July 2020 Board remand decision, the Board found that the VA examinations of record were inadequate for determining entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability. Specifically, the Board found that the February 2020 examiner’s rationale to be insufficient for purposes of determining entitlement to service connection because the examiner failed to explain why he could not attribute the Veteran’s complaints to the strains of his job as an electrician apprentice. Subsequently, the Board remanded the matter for an addendum opinion from the same examiner. The examiner submitted opinions in October and August 2020. In both of the October and August 2020 opinions, the examiner again opined that the Veteran’s right ankle disability was less likely than not incurred in service. However, with regards to the Veteran’s assertion that the strains of his job as an electrician apprentice caused his current ankle disability, the examiner stated “I cannot attribute his complaints for chronic ankle condition to his job. Any significant sprain injuries would have likely as not required medical care.” Again, the examiner did not provide a reason for his inability to provide an opinion. Further, the examiner did not address the March 2020 statement provided by the Chief Facilities Maintenance for the United States Air Force regarding the bodily stresses and injuries associated with the Veteran’s in-service employment. The Board also observes that while the examiner noted the Veteran’s previous diagnoses of right ankle degenerative arthritis, osteochondrosis dissecans, and right ankle sprains, the examiner’s opinion does not state whether any of the diagnoses other than right ankle sprain are etiologically related to active duty service. Accordingly, this opinion is inadequate for determining entitlement to service connection and remand is once again warranted to obtain a new examination by an orthopedic specialist. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran a VA examination with an orthopedic specialist of appropriate expertise. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any of the Veteran’s noted right ankle disabilities, including but not limited to degenerative arthritis, osteochondrosis dissecans, and right ankle sprains, originated during or is otherwise etiologically related to his military service. In providing this opinion, the examiner must address the Veteran’s statements describing the vigorous nature of his work as an electrician lineman during service, and his statements to the effect that he sprained his right ankle after falls in 1994 and 1996, and suffered right ankle pain throughout service and to the present day. The examiner must also address the March 2020 lay statement provided by the Chief Facilities Maintenance for the United States Air Force. (Continued on next page) The examiner must provide a rationale for any proffered opinion. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Gorum, Associate 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.