Citation Nr: 21063240 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 15-03 604 DATE: October 13, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a total right hip replacement is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a total left hip replacement is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a total right knee replacement is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a right leg disorder is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a lumber disorder, to include stenosis with grade 1 spondylolisthesis, is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a thoracic disorder, to include stenosis with spinal cord bruising, is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder, to include an Achilles tendon disorder, is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder, to include an Achilles tendon disorder, is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder is remanded. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder is remanded. The claim of entitlement to eligibility for the purchase of automotive and adaptive equipment, or adaptive equipment only, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Appellant served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from August 1970 to December 1970. Thereafter he served in the National Guard from December 1970 to July 1982, and in the reserve from September 1982 to April 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2019, the Board denied the Appellant's claims. In March 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), on the basis of a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion), vacated the denials and remanded the matters to the Board for further action. The Board subsequently remanded these issues for additional development in October 2020. 1. The claims of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a total bilateral hip replacement, a right knee disability, a right leg condition, lumbar spine disability, thoracic spine disability, and bilateral ankle disability are remanded. In October 2020, the Board requested that the RO schedule VA examinations to assess the etiology of the Appellant's disabilities on appeal. Unfortunately, the Appellant's spouse informed the RO that he lived in a memory care facility and could not attend the scheduled examinations. This case was subsequently returned to the Board without attempting to obtain the requested VA medical opinions from the previous remand. While the Appellant may be unable to attend examination, medical opinions addressing the etiology of the disabilities on appeal may still be obtained based upon a review of the file. Accordingly, remand is necessary to obtain the previously requested medical opinions. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder is remanded. As a November 2013 VA examiner opined that Appellant's hammer toes were "just as likely as not to be secondary to the bilateral radiculopathy from his disc disease," the Appellant's foot disorder claims are inextricably intertwined with the remanded thoracic and lumbar spine claims. 3. The claim of entitlement to eligibility for the purchase of automotive and adaptive equipment, or adaptive equipment only, is remanded. With regard to Appellant's eligibility for automobile and adaptive equipment, his entitlement to such a benefit is based on his overall level of disability, including whether his spine, hip, and leg disabilities could lead to a finding of permanent loss of use of at least one foot. As such, the issue of eligibility for automobile and adaptive equipment is inextricably intertwined with the issues being remanded and should be remanded as well. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Appellant and the representative of record in order to identify any outstanding non-VA treatment records regarding the issues on appeal. If non-VA providers are identified, obtain releases for those records. Make all reasonable attempts to obtain the non-VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. If such records cannot be obtained, inform the Appellant and the representative of record, and afford an opportunity to provide these outstanding records. 2. Following completion of the foregoing, obtain medical opinions to address the etiology of the Appellant's claimed disabilities of the hips, right knee, right leg, spine, ankles, and feet. A complete copy of the claims file should be made available to the examiner(s), including personnel records pertaining to active duty for training and inactive duty for training and service treatment records. Following a thorough review of the medical and lay evidence of record, the examiner(s) should discuss the following: (a.) Identify any and all present diagnoses of the hips, right knee, right leg, lumbar and thoracic spine, ankles, and feet. (b.) For each identified diagnosis, address whether the diagnosed disability represents a disease or injury. (c.) As to any injury, the examiner is to opine as to whether it is as likely as not that such was incurred or aggravated during a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. (d.) As to any disease, the examiner is to opine as to whether it is as likely as not that such was incurred or aggravated during a period of ACDUTRA. (e.) In forming an opinion, the examiner(s) should address the lay and medical evidence referenced in the Appellant's May 2020 brief. The examination report should specifically state that a review of the record was conducted. The examiner(s) should provide a complete rationale for all opinions provided. If an opinion cannot be provided without to resorting to mere speculation, the examiner(s) should identify all medical and lay evidence considered in this conclusion, fully explain why this is the case and identify what additional evidence (if any) would allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record and readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any remain denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate supplemental SOC, afford the Appellant and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Fisher, 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.