Citation Nr: 21062460 Decision Date: 10/07/21 Archive Date: 10/07/21 DOCKET NO. 08-16 563A DATE: October 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service in the United States Army from October 1979 to October 1982. He subsequently served in the Alabama Army National Guard through April 2005, including periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). The Veteran also served on active duty for special work from May 1997 to September 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2007 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2012, the Board remanded the case to afford the Veteran a hearing before the Board. That hearing was conducted in January 2013 via videoconference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Board also remanded the case in December 2013 and May 2015 for further development. The Board denied these issues in a June 2018 decision. The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In April 2019, the Court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) and remanded these issues to the Board for action consistent with the terms of the JMR. In May 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran's claims for VA medical opinions completed by an orthopedist for the right knee disability claim and by an internist or cardiologist for the hypertension claim. While the June 2020 VA medical opinion for a right knee disability was completed by an orthopedist, the June 2020 hypertension opinion was completed by a physician's assistant rather than an internist or cardiologist. Thus, the Board in December 2020 found that the May 2020 remand directives were not complied with and remanded for a new medical opinion to be rendered by an internist or cardiologist. Additionally, in July 2020 correspondence, the Veteran's representative requested "the qualifications and credentials of the examiners so that [she] can determine whether they are 'appropriate specialists' as required by the remand." Pursuant to Nohr v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 124, 133-134 (2014), the VA has an obligation to assist the Veteran in obtaining the records necessary to challenge the VA examiners' presumed expertise. Accordingly, the Board found that remand was also necessary for the VA to provide the Veteran and his representative with documentation regarding the qualifications and credentials of the June 2020 hypertension and right knee examiners, as well as the examiner selected to complete the updated hypertension medical opinion. Since the December 2020 decision, a new VA opinion was rendered in January 2021 by a cardiovascular disease specialist. A new examination for hypertension was conducted in March 2021 by a family nurse practitioner. An examination was conducted, and opinion rendered, for the right knee claim by the same family nurse practitioner in March 2021. Regarding the second portion of the December 2020 remand directives, the claims file does not reflect that documentation regarding the qualifications and credentials of the VA examiners have been provided to the Veteran and his representative. Following the issuance of a May 2021 SSOC stating that the remand directives have been complied with, the Veteran's representative sent correspondence in June 2021 requesting copies of the January and March 2021 examination reports and examiners' qualifications. September 2021 correspondence from VA acknowledges the June 2021 request and provided the Veteran and his representative with the January and March 2021 VA examination reports. Thus, while the record establishes that copies of the June 2020, January 2021, and March 2021 VA examination reports have been provided to the Veteran and his representative, the qualifications of the examiners have not yet been provided as directed in the December 2020 remand. As such, while the Board regrets the additional delay, it finds that its prior directives were not substantially complied with and an additional remand is necessary. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to substantial, but not strict, compliance with the remand orders. See Stegall v. West,11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Provide the Veteran and his representative with the qualifications and credentials of the June 2020, January 2021, and March 2021 hypertension and right knee examiners and document such in the claims file. If the AOJ is unable to provide the Veteran and his representative with the requested information regarding the qualifications of the VA examiners, please provide an explanation in writing and send the explanation to the Veteran and his representative and associate the documentation with the claims file. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Carroll, 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.