Citation Nr: 21074646 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-37 787 DATE: December 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial increased rating for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, rated 10 percent prior to September 19, 2014, and 20 percent thereafter, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1968 to May 1972, and again from February 1974 to April 1983. He also had a period of dishonorable service from May 1983 to June 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). In a November 2020 decision, the Board denied entitlement to an initial 10 percent rating for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy prior to September 19, 2014, and denied a rating in excess of 20 percent thereafter. The Veteran subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Pursuant to a July 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court remanded the issue in August 2021. As outlined in the JMR, a remand is necessary to obtain an additional VA medical opinion. In a February 2020 Board Remand, the Board directed the AOJ to obtain an addendum medical opinion in which a clinician, "if possible," addressed the severity of the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy "based on the reported symptoms and objective findings, and the nerves affected, at the time of" all prior VA examinations and Veteran-submitted Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs). If such an opinion could not be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the clinician should have explained why that was so. A February 2020 VA addendum opinion failed to address the severity of the Veteran's condition at the time of each prior VA examination or DBQ and failed to explain why such opinions could not be provided. Accordingly, an additional VA medical opinion is required on remand to determine the prior severity at the time of each evaluation or explain why such determinations cannot be offered. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with its remand orders). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from the clinician who performed the December 2019 VA examination. If the clinician is unavailable, obtain an opinion from a clinician qualified to provide the following opinions. The clinician is asked to review the evidence, specifically the prior VA examination reports and Veteran-submitted DBQs, and, if possible, address the severity of the Veteran's neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities at the time of each prior VA examination and DBQ. This should be based on the reported symptoms, objective findings, and the nerves affected, at the time of the aforementioned examinations. If the clinician is unable to provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. If it is determined that a physical examination is necessary to provide the requested opinions, an appropriate examination should be scheduled. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case and return the matter to the Board if otherwise in order. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board W. Ripplinger, 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.