Citation Nr: 21065970 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 771 DATE: October 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for a pulmonary disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1952 to April 1956. In May 2017, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. When this case was before the Board in September 2017, May 2018, October 2019, February 2020, and August 2020, the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for a pulmonary disorder was remanded for additional development. The case has since been returned to the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for a pulmonary disorder is remanded. Although most unfortunate and frustrating, the Board finds additional development remains necessary prior to final adjudication of the issue on appeal. As noted in all of the Board's prior remands, when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson,21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Further, a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West,11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). While the Board acknowledges the RO's attempts to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination in compliance with the August 2020 Board remand decision as evidenced by letters dated May 6, 2021, and March 23, 2021, the Board also notes that in the event the required testing was unable to be completed, the RO was still directed to obtain an opinion regarding (a) whether the FVC or DLCO most accurately reflects the severity and progression of the Veteran's interstitial lung disease; and (b) whether the FEV-1, DLCO, or FEV-1/FVC most accurately reflects the severity and progression of the Veteran's restrictive lung disease. Upon the unsuccessful attempts to contact the Veteran and arrange an examination, the RO certified the appeal to return to the Board without obtaining an opinion based on a review of the record regarding the aforementioned questions. Accordingly, remand is once again warranted. The Board observes that the Veteran is diagnosed with dementia and may be experiencing difficulties in responding to appointment requests. The Board is sympathetic to these difficulties, therefore upon remand, the RO should make another attempt to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination regarding the severity of his service-connected pulmonary disorder. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise, who has not previously examined the Veteran, to fully assess the severity of the Veteran's service-connected pulmonary disorders. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed, to specifically include all required pulmonary function tests. Ensure the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary, he or she should be directed to clearly explain why that is so. The examiner should comment on: a) whether the FVC or DLCO most accurately reflects the severity and progression of the Veteran's interstitial lung disease; and b) whether the FEV-1, DLCO, or FEV-1/FVC most accurately reflects the severity and progression of the Veteran's restrictive lung disease. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for these determinations. If the Veteran is unable to attend an in-person examination, the RO should forward the Veteran's record to the examiner and obtain a medical opinion based on review of the claims file. The RO should use various communication methods to contact the Veteran to include, but not limited to, phone call, mail, email, etc. All methods of contact used to inform the Veteran about the exam must be specifically noted within the record. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Gorum, 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.