Citation Nr: 21070265 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 14-36 797 DATE: November 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot problems/frostbite of the toes and feet is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1975 to June 1978. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is from a January 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran died in November 2015, during the pendency of this appeal. Now the appellant is his surviving spouse, so widow, since she has been substituted to process this claim to completion. In May 2020, the Board denied this claim, and, in response, the appellant appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court/CAVC). In March 2021, the Court granted the contesting parties' Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacating the Board's decision denying this claim and remanding it back to the Board for further development and readjudication. After receiving this case back from the Court, in July 2021 the Board, in turn, remanded the claim back to the RO (Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)) to comply with the Court-granted JMR. Unfortunately, however, another remand of this claim is required to comply with the directives of the prior remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions). Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot problems/frostbite of the toes and feet again is remanded. The prior July 2021 remand directed that the RO (AOJ) further develop this claim including by having a VA medical examiner provide an opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral (left and right) foot problems in relation to his service, particularly with specific discussion of the February 1979 documentation of a left bone spur and subsequent diagnosis, his report of foot pain in March 2011, and an August 2014 VA treatment record. In August 2021, to this end, a VA examiner reviewed the file and provided an opinion regarding the origins of the Veteran's foot problems. However, while the examiner discussed the 1979 documentation of a left bone spur and subsequent diagnosis, the examiner did not also address the Veteran's March 2011 statement or the August 2014 VA treatment record concerning his feet, and these, too, must be considered. Since they were not also discussed, there has not been the required substantial compliance with this remand directive. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only "substantial" rather than strict or exact compliance with the Board's remand directives is required under Stegall); accord Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). Accordingly, this claim is again REMANDED for the following action: If still available, obtain still more medical comment (addendum opinion) from the August 2021 examiner or an appropriate clinician regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot problems/frostbite of the feet and toes. *To this end, the examiner must address the Veteran's report of foot pain in a March 2011 statement and the August 2014 VA medical record (there previously only was discussion of the February 1979 documentation of a left bone spur and subsequent diagnosis). The examiner is then asked to again comment on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any bilateral foot problems/frostbite of the toes and feet originated during the Veteran's service or is otherwise related or attributable to his service. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Pak 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.