Citation Nr: 21064561 Decision Date: 10/20/21 Archive Date: 10/20/21 DOCKET NO. 19-07 187A DATE: October 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, claimed as a right ankle and right foot disability, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1963 to September 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) (hereinafter Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2021. A transcript has been associated with the record. This case has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900. In May 2021, the Board remanded the issue on appeal for further development. While the Board greatly regrets further delay, remand is required for an addendum medical opinion for full compliance with the Board's previous remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). In the May 2021 Remand, the Board directed the AOJ obtain an addendum opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right lower extremity neuropathy. In pertinent part, the Board directed the examiner to address the Veteran's November 1964 service treatment record that documented an ankle injury, the April 2016 private opinion issued by D.M, and the Veteran's testimony during the January 2021 Board hearing that he was not provided with an extensive examination at separation that would have captured his right lower extremity symptoms. Further, the examiner was directed to take into account the Veteran's history and contentions and to provide the medical reasons for accepting or rejecting the Veteran's statements. In the September 2021 VA Medical opinion, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's right lower extremity neuropathy is less likely than not incurred from military service. However, the examiner did not address the April 2016 private opinion issued by Dr. D.M, the Veteran's testimony during the January 2021 hearing, nor did he provide the medical reasons for accepting or rejecting the Veteran's statements. As such, there has not been compliance with the Board remand directives and a remand for a new VA addendum opinion is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should obtain any outstanding private and VA treatment records pertaining to the Veteran's right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. 2. After the above development has been completed, the AOJ should obtain an addendum opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right lower extremity neuropathy. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should state this with a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right lower extremity neuropathy is causally or etiologically related to his military service. In rendering this opinion, the examiner should address the following: the November 1964 service treatment record that documented an ankle injury; the April 2016 private opinion issued by Dr. D.M., stating that the Veteran's current right lower extremity neuropathy "is a permanent injury as a result of an accident that occurred 50 years ago;" the February 2017 opinion issued by Dr. M.G., stating that it appears that the Veteran has had chronic neuropathy for at least 50 years; and the Veteran's testimony during the January 2021 Board hearing that he was not provided with an extensive examination at separation that would have captured his right lower extremity symptoms. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. Any opinion offered must take into account the Veteran's history and contentions. The medical reasons for accepting or rejecting the Veteran's statements should be set forth in detail. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Patrick C. Brady, 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.