Citation Nr: 21072518 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 14-09 571 DATE: December 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left hand and wrist disability, other than fifth (little) finger fracture and scar residuals, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1961 to June 1965. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. In January 2017, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript is of record. In September 2020, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a left hand and wrist disability, other than fifth (little) finger fracture and scar residuals. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In July 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted a Joint Motion for Remand and vacated the September 2020 decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that denied entitlement to service connection for a left hand and wrist disability, other than fifth (little) finger fracture and scar residuals and remanded those issues to the Board for additional action. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c); 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left hand and wrist disability, other than fifth (little) finger fracture and scar residuals, is remanded. Although the Board regrets the delay, additional development is needed prior to further disposition of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left hand and wrist disability, other than fifth (little) finger fracture and scar residuals. In a July 2021 decision, the parties to the Joint Motion for Remand agreed that the November 2019 VA examination, on which the Board's September 2020 decision was predicated, was inadequate. The Board has no discretion and must remand the appeal for compliance with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' July 2021 Order vacating the Board's September 2020 decision and remanding the matter for further adjudication consistent with the Joint Motion for Remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414 (2006). To address the concerns of the Court and the parties of the Joint Motion, the Board finds that, because of the inadequacy of the November 2019 VA opinion and the absence of additional evidence pertaining to the claimed disabilities, a medical opinion is necessary for adjudication of the service connection claim. Because the November 2019 VA examination was agreed to be inadequate, the Board finds that further examination is needed to determine whether the claimed left hand and wrist disabilities are etiologically related to, incurred in, or aggravated by the Veteran's service. Therefore, on remand, an examination should be scheduled and an opinion as to the etiology of the claimed disabilities must be requested. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The Veteran is notified that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who provided treatment for all claimed disabilities. After securing the necessary releases, attempt to obtain all copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the Veteran that are not currently of record. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, with an examiner who has not previously examined the Veteran, to diagnose and obtain an opinion regarding the etiology of any identified left hand or wrist disability. The examiner must review the claims file, including this Remand and the July 2021 Joint Motion for Remand, and the Veteran's lay statements, including hearing testimony, and should indicate review of the file in the report. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any diagnosed left hand or wrist disability is etiologically related to active service or any event, disease, or injury during service, including whether any left hand and/or wrist disability (1) began during active duty service; (2) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service; (3) was caused by any service-connected disability, or treatment for any service-connected disability; (4) was aggravated (increased in severity beyond the natural progress of the disorder) by any service-connected disability, or treatment for any service-connected disability; or (5) manifested as hand or wrist arthritis within one year after separation from a period of active service. The examiner should address the lay statements regarding the disability, including those made during the Veteran's January 2017 Board hearing, regarding the claimed disability and its etiology and should reconcile the opinion with any previous opinions of record. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and that those reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the Veteran's reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. The examiner must discuss any significance of the Veteran's December 1964 aircraft door injury in service as it relates to the current disability. A clearly stated rationale for each opinion should be provided and cannot be based solely on the lack of a record in service of the claimed disability. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mondesir, Eric 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.