Citation Nr: 21004124
Decision Date: 01/26/21	Archive Date: 01/26/21

DOCKET NO. 15-10 165
DATE: January 26, 2021

REMANDED

A rating in excess of 20 percent for impairment of the seventh cranial nerve damage is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1991 to August 1993. 

In August 2016, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.

This case was previously before the Board in November 2016, May 2018, April 2019 and October 2020 and remanded for additional development.

On October 2020 the Board remanded this case with instructions to the RO to provide the Veteran with the examiner’s curriculum vitae and to associate the information in the Veteran’s file. That same month, the RO provided a letter to the Veteran with the examiner name, specialty, license number address, and phone and fax number. However, the record does not show that the Veteran was provided with the examiner’s curriculum vitae. Thus, the Board must remand this matter again for the RO to comply with the Board’s October 2020 remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).

Once a Veteran has raised the issue of an examiner’s competency to offer a medical opinion, he or she has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about the qualifications of the examiner. Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, in July 2020, the Veteran’s representative’s contentions meet the Francway criteria and pursuant to the duty to assist the Board must remand this case to provide the Veteran with the examiner’s curriculum vitae.  

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Provide the Veteran information necessary to assess the competency of the January 2020 VA examiner, to include the examiner’s curriculum vitae. This information is to be associated with the Veteran’s claims file. 

 

 

STEVEN D. REISS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Alvarado- 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.