Citation Nr: 21070815 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 858 DATE: November 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability, to include degenerative joint disease (DJD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from February 1984 to February 1987. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board, most recently in June 2021, at which times the issue on appeal was remanded for additional development. This case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Service Connection Left ankle disability In the June 2021 remand, the Board directed that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his left ankle disability. A review of the record shows that the Veteran was afforded the directed examination in July 2021. At that time, the Veteran reported that the insidious onset of his bilateral ankle pain was on active duty in 1984. The VA examiner reported that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of degenerative arthritis in both ankles. However, the VA examiner ultimately opined that the Veteran's left ankle disability was less likely than not caused by his active service. The VA examiner reasoned that the Veteran's STRs were silent for any diagnosed left ankle condition while on active duty, that the 1984 diagnosis of a left ankle strain was acute, and that there was no imaging or follow-up evaluation of the left ankle while on active duty. The VA examiner also noted that the Veteran's March 2016 diagnosis of degenerative arthritis was 29 years post-separation. The Board finds that the July 2021 VA medical opinion is inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the VA examiner failed to consider the Veteran's lay statements pertaining to continuous left ankle pain since his active service. Further, the VA examiner's conclusions were primarily based on an absence of evidence. As the opinion is inadequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial for entitlement to service connection. Therefore, the Board finds that the development conducted does not adequately comply with the June 2021 Board remand directives. Compliance with a remand is not discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates remand for corrective action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claims file to a VA examiner with sufficient expertise for an addendum opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's left ankle disability. The claims file, to include the herein remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Based on a review of the record, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) that any currently present left ankle disability had its onset during the Veteran's active service, or is otherwise etiologically related to such service. In forming the opinion, the examiner must consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his left ankle disability and the continuity of his left ankle symptoms, in particular pain, since active service. The VA examiner must also specifically address the March 2016 notation, from Dr. T.A.T., that the Veteran's left ankle joint pain was "likely due to muscle and ligamental strain," in relation to possible residuals from his 1984 diagnosis of a left ankle strain. A complete and detailed rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. A new examination of the Veteran should only be conducted if deemed necessary by the examiner providing the requested medical opinion. 2. Confirm that all medical opinions provided comport with this remand, and undertake any other development determined to be warranted. 3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If a decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Byrd, 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.