Citation Nr: 21066214 Decision Date: 10/29/21 Archive Date: 10/29/21 DOCKET NO. 11-17 490 DATE: October 29, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper extremities is remanded. Service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1964 to February 1967. After the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, he appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In December 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). The Board then remanded the claims to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development consistent with the JMPR in May 2021. As instructed, the AOJ asked the Veteran to complete a new VA Form 21-4142 for the release of private treatment records from "Dr. G." However, the Veteran did not respond to the AOJ's request for information. The Board notes that VA's duty to assist is not a "one-way street." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). If the Veteran would like the AOJ to attempt to obtain these records, he must complete a new authorization/release form. His earlier authorization has since expired. See October 2017 VA Form 21-4142 (indicating the "authorization is good for 12 months"). The AOJ also afforded the Veteran a new VA examination in July 2021. The 2021 examiner ultimately determined that his peripheral neuropathy was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. The Board finds the 2021 examiner's opinion inadequate. In the May 2021 remand, the Board instructed the examiner to "consider and discuss the Veteran's lay reports of numbness of the hands, particularly the right, and legs since service, and cramps in the legs since service." Despite this directive, the 2021 examiner did not mention any complaints of hand numbness or similar upper extremity symptoms in the opinion. Moreover, while the 2021 examiner noted one 2009 complaint of nocturnal leg cramps and muscle spasm, the examiner did not clearly discuss his reports that he has had lower extremity symptoms (i.e., numbness and cramps) since service. This is the same error the parties to the JMPR identified in the November 2017 VA examiner's opinion. See JMPR at 3; see also Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 25960 (2020) (holding that a VA examiner "must address the veteran's lay statements to provide the Board with an adequate medical opinion"). Another remand is therefore necessary to ensure compliance with the Board's previous instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board by this remand makes no determination, expressed or implied, concerning the credibility of any statements on file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum medical opinion on the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner must address the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremities that was incurred in or caused by service? The examiner must clearly consider and discuss the Veteran's reports of numbness of the hands, particular the right. (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities that was incurred in or caused by service? The examiner must clearly consider and discuss the Veteran's reports of numbness of the legs since service, and cramps in the legs since service. 2. Review the medical opinion above to ensure substantial compliance with the Board's directives. Take any necessary corrective action. 3. Readjudicate the Veteran's claims. If any claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. Then return to the Board for further appellate review. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D.Z. Wall, 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.