Citation Nr: 21064193 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 15-32 000 DATE: October 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2007 to October 2008. He had additional periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from May 2015 and June 2015 rating decisions of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Additional VA treatment records were added to the Veteran's claims file subsequent to the April 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case. This new evidence was not reviewed by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in the first instance, and a waiver of this new evidence from the Veteran or his representative is not of record. However, this new evidence is not pertinent to the issues currently on appeal. The issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) was remanded by the Board in January 2019. Upon remand, the AOJ granted the claim. The Veteran did not file a Notice of Disagreement. This issue is no longer on appeal before the Board. These service connection claims were previously remanded by the Board in January 2019 for further development. A review of the record indicates that the Board's directives were not substantially complied with, such that further remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In this instance, the opinions rendered by the examiner are not adequate for the Board to adjudicate the claims before it. For each condition, when providing an opinion as to direct causation, the examiner stated that there was no evidence of an in-service injury. However, it appears that the examiner limited this observation to the Veteran's period of active duty service from September 2007 to October 2008 and did not consider the Veteran's many periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. The Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records contain several complaints of right knee pain and right shoulder pain, including in September 2009 and December 2010. Further, the examiner did not discuss the evidence and arguments submitted by the Veteran's representative in a letter dated June 2018, as was specifically requested by the Board in the remand directives. Upon remand, VA addendum medical opinions must be obtained. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's right shoulder disability, right knee disability, left knee disability, or back disability. The claims file, including a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Regarding direct service connection, the examiner is asked to opine whether the Veteran's right shoulder disability, right knee disability, left knee disability, and back disability are due to an injury or disease in service, to include the periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. In so discussing the above, the examiner must specifically discuss the Veteran's service treatment records that note a possible right knee and right shoulder injury during a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. The examiner must specifically address the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset of symptoms and any continuity of symptomatology since onset and/or since discharge from service. The examiner must also specifically discuss the evidence and arguments submitted by the Veteran's representative in a letter dated June 2018. All opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. S. M. Watkins Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Uller 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.