Citation Nr: 21063132 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-67 081 DATE: October 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of electrocution to the left arm is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty for numerous periods of time, to include from June 1958 to March 1962, from October 1962 to April 1963, and from September 1963 to February 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2020, the Board denied the claim as "entitlement to service connection for peripheral nerve condition (or peripheral neuropathy) of the left arm." The Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a February 2021 Order, the Court vacated the decision and remanded the matter to the Board for development consistent with the parties' Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion). The parties agreed that remand was required for the Board to consider whether VA narrowed the scope of the Veteran's claim, and if so, whether this was an accurate reflection of the claim on appeal. In light of the February 2021 Joint Motion and arguments submitted in support of the Veteran's claim by his attorney in a July 2021 letter, the Board has broadened the scope of the Veteran's claim as reflected above to include any potential residuals stemming from the Veteran's October 1960 in-service electrocution. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009); Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79 (2009). In a July 2021 statement, the Veteran reported experiencing severe muscle spasms, numbness and muscle pain as a result of his in-service electrocution. He also reported experiencing muscle weakness and fatigue, and he needed to walk with the assistance of poles because of the instability caused by his muscle problems. The April 2015 VA examination report focused on addressing whether the Veteran experienced peripheral neuropathy in his left arm, and if so, whether this neuropathy resulted from an in-service electrocution. As such, it is inadequate to address the broadened scope of the claim on appeal. Remand is needed to afford the Veteran a new VA examination that fully addresses all potential residuals stemming from his in-service electrocution. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the Veteran's claims folder. 2. Then schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate examiner to determine the nature and likely etiology regarding any residuals of the Veteran's in-service electrocution. The examiner should review the claims file and conduct all appropriate tests and studies. All clinical findings should be reported in detail. After a review of the Veteran's claims file, the examiner is asked to address the following questions: (a.) Identify all residuals related to the Veteran's complaints attributed to his in-service electrocution. (b.) The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or greater) that any diagnosed residual condition had its onset in service or is otherwise related to the Veteran's in-service electrocution. The examiner should specifically address lay statements made by the Veteran that he has experienced muscle spasms, numbness, muscle pain, and trouble with walking as a result of his in-service electrocution. A full rationale is to be provided for all stated medical opinions. If the examiner concludes that the requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and explain why this opinion would be speculative and what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. M. E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Komperda, 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.