Citation Nr: 21006513 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-52 460 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1976 to October 1979. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2014 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The procedural history of this case is as follows: In April 2019, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for left knee and foot disabilities. Subsequently, the Veteran appealed the April 2019 decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In April 2020, CAVC issued a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) after finding the Board relied on an inadequate VA examination for the left foot and did not provide adequate reasons and bases for denying the left knee and foot claims. In September 2020, the Board remanded the claim to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. Although the Board regrets further delay, the Board finds the acquired VA medical opinions do not comply with the September 2020 remand directives. Here, the September 2020 Board remand specifically ordered opinions that take into consideration his lay statements and to “reconcile any opinion with all other clinical evidence of record and the Veteran’s and other lay evidence of record.” However, the left foot and knee opinions did not reconcile the evidence of record with the Veteran’s lay statements of continuity of symptomatology. Indeed, the opinions do not in any way address his complaints of continued foot and knee pain post-service. Additionally, the medical opinion for his left foot erroneously stated the Veteran never sought treatment for an in-service foot injury; however, the STRs indicate he received in-service treatment in June 1977. Finally, the VA examiner did not discuss the Veteran’s in-service parachute jumps. As such, the medical opinions are not in compliance with the September 2020 Board remand. Thus, another remand of these matters is required to ensure such compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order); see also D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (holding a remand not required under Stegall where the Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with). These matters are remanded for the following actions: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from a suitably qualified examiner to provide an opinion concerning the etiology of the Veteran’s left foot disability. The claims folder must be made available for review. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s left foot disability had its onset in or was otherwise attributable to service. The examiner must reconcile the opinion with the evidence of record including the report of left foot swelling in the service treatment records, the Veteran’s reports of chronic symptomatology, and the Veteran’s parachute jumps. A full rationale must be provided for any opinion reached. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from a suitably qualified examiner to provide an opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s left knee disability. The claims folder must be made available for review. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that any left knee disability had its onset in or was otherwise attributable to service. The examiner must reconcile the opinion with the evidence of record including the Veteran’s lay statements regarding continuity of symptomatology and the Veteran’s parachute jumps. A full rationale must be provided for any opinion reached. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the remanded issues, and if still denied, return the matter to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order. JESSICA SEAY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Law Clerk, Tyler R. Masters 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.