Citation Nr: 21070219 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 18-18 915 DATE: November 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from November 1967 to April 1969, including in combat in the Republic of Vietnam. This appeal has a long procedural history. It comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2012 rating decision. The Veteran appointed his attorney to represent him before VA by filing a completed VA Form 21-22a at the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in May 2013. A Central Office Board hearing was held in January 2020 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. In January and September 2021, the Board remanded, in pertinent part, this claim to the AOJ for additional development. Having reviewed the record evidence, and although the Board is reluctant to contribute to "the hamster-wheel reputation of Veterans law" by remanding this claim again, additional development is required before the underlying claim can be adjudicated on the merits. Cf. Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427, 434 (2006) (Lance, J., dissenting) (finding that repeated remands "perpetuate the hamster-wheel reputation of Veterans law"). Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred a right foot disability during active service and experienced continuous post-service disability. As noted in the Introduction, this claim has been remanded to the AOJ previously in order to obtain a medical nexus opinion concerning the contended etiological relationship between a right foot disability and active service which is likely to survive judicial review. The Board previously found that a March 2021 VA medical nexus opinion was inadequate for adjudication purposes in the September 2021 remand. See Board remand dated September 1, 2021, at pp. 2. In a letter submitted to VA contemporaneously with the Board's September 2021 remand, the Veteran's attorney reiterated his prior arguments from a May 2021 letter about why the March 2021 VA medical nexus opinion was inadequate for adjudication purposes. The Board will not respond to these arguments again as they duplicate arguments previously addressed in the September 2021 remand. Id. Following the Board's September 2021 remand, the AOJ obtained a VA medical nexus opinion later that same month. A review of this opinion shows that it provides an adequate opinion concerning the contended etiological relationship between a right foot disability and active service and notes that "the Veteran is deemed competent to report a history of symptomatology." In other words, this part of the September 2021 VA medical nexus opinion satisfies the terms of the Board's remand. Unfortunately, this opinion did not address another question which the Board asked the VA clinician to address in the September 2021 remand: "Additionally, the examiner should address whether the Veteran's credible statements align with...how the current diagnosed disabilities are known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible?" Id., at pp. 3 (emphasis in original). Thus, the Board finds that, on remand, an addendum opinion should be obtained which addresses this matter. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claims file to the VA clinician who provided the September 20, 2021, medical nexus opinion or another appropriate clinician for an addendum opinion concerning the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right foot disability. The clinician is asked to state whether the Veteran's credible statements concerning his in-service right foot injuries align with how the currently diagnosed right foot disabilities are known to develop or are these reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible. A rationale must be provided for this opinion. The clinician is advised that the Veteran's statements concerning his in-service right foot injuries are considered credible. The clinician also is advised that the lack of contemporaneous records documenting complaints of or treatment for a right foot disability, alone, is insufficient rationale for a medical nexus opinion. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.