Citation Nr: 21074090 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 13-34 378 DATE: December 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an arthritic condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from November 1968 to June 1970. His military awards include the Purple Heart. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing in August 2016. This case was previously before the Board in September 2017, March 2019, June 2020, November 2020, April 2021, and September 2021 when it was remanded for additional development Entitlement to service connection for an arthritic condition is remanded. A remand by the Board confers on a Veteran, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. If the Board proceeds with final disposition of an appeal, and the remand orders have not been complied with, the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In November 2020, April 2021, and September 2021, the Board remanded this claim to obtain etiology opinions for the Veteran's diagnosed osteoarthritis disabilities which fully considered specific evidence of record. In September 2021, the Board required an opinion which discussed the Veteran's lay statements (February 2011, December 2013, and January 2014) regarding the onset of joint pain shortly after service, the Veteran's August 2016 Board hearing testimony describing joint pain and initial medical treatment as early as 1971, and an April 1971 VA examination noting November 1969 injuries to the lower back and face incurred in an explosion. Additional VA etiology opinions were obtained in October 2021. The examiner confirmed diagnoses of right and left elbow osteoarthritis, right and left ankle osteoarthritis, and degenerative disc disease. He opined conditions were less likely than not causally related to active service because they were diagnosed many years after service and medical records did not show going treatment between the Veteran's active service and the present. The examiner then listed, but did not discuss, the evidence the Board identified as requiring specific consideration. The October 2021 etiology opinions do not contain the analysis required by the Board's prior remand. They are inadequate to evaluate the claim and additional etiology opinions must be obtained. Id. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to an appropriate examiner who has not previously reviewed the Veteran's claim. Following review of this decision and the entire claims file, the examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that EACH osteoarthritis joint disability (i.e., of the back, elbows, and ankles) identified in the August 2020 and May 2021 examination reports began in or is otherwise caused by the Veteran's active service, including injury from a November 1969 ammunition explosion that knocked the Veteran from his bunk. The examiner MUST specifically address and discuss fully the Veteran's lay statements (February 2011, December 2013, and January 2014) regarding the onset of joint pain shortly after service. The examiner must specifically address and discuss fully the Veteran's August 2016 Board hearing testimony, where he described seeking treatment as early as 1971 and complaining of joint pain. The examiner must also specifically address and discuss fully the Veteran's report in the April 1971 VA examination that he was injured in November 1969 in the lower back and face, treated in a field hospital, and returned to duty without hospitalization. In providing the requested opinions, the examiner is informed that a portion of the Veteran's service treatment records, including those relevant to the November 1969 blast injuries, are unavailable, but that the Veteran's reports of the in-service injury are deemed credible. The examiner is also advised that the Veteran is competent to report his experience of symptoms (including joint pain) and his recollection of seeking medical treatment. If the examiner dismisses these competent reports, a full explanation for doing so must be provided. The examiner may not dismiss the Veteran's reports of joint pain solely on the basis that they are not recorded in contemporaneous medical records. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. Any opinion and supporting rationale which does not include a discussion of the Veteran's lay statements, his testimony before the Board, and the November1969 injuries will be deemed incomplete and inadequate. If the examiner finds it significant in determining the etiology of the Veteran's osteoarthritis joint disability that the Veteran did not seek treatment for his joint pain, the examiner must discuss why this is significant and why it would weigh either in favor of or against the Veteran's claim. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jeanne Celtnieks 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.