Citation Nr: 21065872 Decision Date: 10/27/21 Archive Date: 10/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-29 654 DATE: October 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from February 1969 to November 1972. This appeal arises from the September 2013 rating decision, denying service connection for degenerative joint disease (DJD) of both feet and his right ankle, and arthritis of the left leg. Then, in April 2019, the Board issued a decision denying the appeal for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, right ankle disability, and left leg disability. The Board's April 2019 decision also remanded the issues of service connection for tinnitus and diabetes to the AOJ for additional development and consideration. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) issued an April 2020 Order that partially vacated the Board's prior April 2019 decision on the bilateral foot, right ankle, and left leg claims, and remanded the matters to the Board. The Court's Order granted an April 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by both VA and the Appellant (the Parties). In October 2020, the Board remanded the claims in conjunction the vacatur of the CAVC. The Board directed the AOJ to obtain in-service hospitalization records from May and August 1969 when the Veteran was seen for foot and ankle pain; obtain new medical nexus opinions for the three disabilities; obtain VA treatment records from Shreveport VA medical center (VAMC); and attempt to obtain any relevant private treatment records, specifically those related to the claimed 1972 motorcycle accident. It is evident from the record that the AOJ requested the May and August 1969 inpatient hospitalization records and response stated such records had been provided. In addition, records from Shreveport VAMC were obtained and associated with the file. The AOJ also mailed a letter to the Veteran on November 2, 2020 requesting the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of any medical provider who treated the Veteran for the disabilities at issue, specifically those concerning the motorcycle accident in 1972; neither the Veteran nor his representative provided a response. Thus, those three directives from the October 2020 remand were completed. Nevertheless, the Board must remand the claim due to noncompliance with one directive: to obtain new medical nexus opinions. Of record are requests for medical examinations for the three disabilities and notices from the medical examination contractor that the Veteran cancelled all three examinations. However, the October 2020 remand directive specifically requested only medical opinions be obtained the Board did not request to have the Veteran undergo additional examinations. As the RO did not complete the requested development contained within the October 2020 remand, the Board must remand the claim to obtain the medical opinions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (a Board remand confers a right on a claimant to compliance with the remand order). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure all outstanding VA treatment records are associated with the file. 2. Obtain a VA medical opinion by an appropriate clinician, different from the July 2013 VA examiner, to determine the etiology of the Veteran's claimed bilateral foot, right ankle, and left leg disabilities. The examiner should indicate that the record was reviewed. On review of the record, the examiner should express an opinion as to: (a) whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed bilateral foot disability, to include degenerative joint disease, was caused by or otherwise etiologically related to service. (b) whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed right ankle disability, to include degenerative joint disease, was caused by or otherwise etiologically related to service. (c) whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed left leg disability, to include osteoarthritis, was caused by or otherwise etiologically related to service. *In providing the opinion, the examiner must address: (i) the hospitalization for foot and ankle problems during May and August 1969 at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Subic Bay, Philippines; (ii) lay statements by the Veteran on the history of his claimed disability during service and symptoms (e.g., foot, ankle, and leg pain) following service; and (iii) the Veteran's claim that he had an in-service motorcycle accident during service in 1972 that injured his left lower extremity. The examiner should provide a complete explanation for all opinions. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims on appeal. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moldawer, 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.