Citation Nr: 21065520 Decision Date: 10/26/21 Archive Date: 10/26/21 DOCKET NO. 13-03 483A DATE: October 26, 2021 REMANDED The service connection claim for gout (claimed as bilateral toe disability) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from July 1971 to September 1975; and in the United States Navy from October 1978 to December 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. In April 2016, the Veteran and his spouse, L.W., testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing is of record. In October 2016, April 2018, and February 2019, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional Office for further evidentiary development. In a November 2020 decision, however, the Board denied the claim. Subsequently, the Veteran filed an appeal of this November 2020 Board decision with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a July 2021 joint motion for remand, the parties stipulated that an order vacating and remanding the November 2020 Board decision was warranted because the Board erred when it failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist with obtaining outstanding treatment records, as well as obtaining an adequate medical opinion, thereby failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases for its decision Accordingly, in a July 2021 Order, the Court granted the parties' motion, and duly remanded this issue for additional developments, consistent with the July 2021 joint motion for remand. At his April 2016 videoconference hearing, the Veteran and his wife testified that he was treated for gout by Dr. Adenisa in Lynchburg, around 1988 or 1989. Additionally, medical evidence, comprising VA treatment records from VA medical centers in Houston, Biloxi, and Pensacola only date back to 2001. Thus, as there are older outstanding treatment records, which may be probative to the Veteran's claim, a remand is required for the Regional Office to obtain all outstanding private and VA treatment records to associate them with the claims file. Additional, in October 2019, a VA examiner rendered a negative nexus opinion on the Veteran's gout/bilateral toe, in which his rationale for this opinion was entirely based on the absence of corroborating treatment records, even though the Veteran's service treatment records are missing. As this rationale is speculative and conclusory, this October 2019 VA opinion is inadequate for adjudicating this claim. Thus, on remand, the Regional Office must also obtain a new VA opinion on the Veteran's bilateral toe disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran to obtain the requisite authorization and release and obtain all outstanding private and VA treatment records, especially from 1988 to 2001. In obtaining all outstanding treatment records, please e and verify the correct spelling of the Veteran's name, as some of his records have an incorrect spelling of his last name. 2. After obtaining all outstanding treatment records and associating them with the claims file, obtain a new VA opinion on the nexus between the Veteran's bilateral toe disability and his active service. The VA examiner must review a complete claims file and must note that review in the report. A copy of this REMAND must also be provided to the VA examiner. The VA examiner must undertake the following: a. Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (more than 50 percent probability) the Veteran's bilateral toe disability/gout is the result of an in-service injury, illness or event; was incurred in active service; and/or is otherwise related to his active service. b. As the Veteran's STRs are missing, the VA opinion may not be solely based on the absence of in-service evidence of treatment, illnesses, complaints, and/or related bilateral toe or gout conditions. c. In rendering an opinion, please consider all lay statements from the Veteran and his spouse, as well as any other witness, about onset, continuity of symptoms, and/or any pertinent details about the bilateral toe/gout condition. d. A detailed explanation is requested for all opinions provided. If an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be rendered. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board V-N. Pratt 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.