Citation Nr: 21006751
Decision Date: 02/05/21	Archive Date: 02/05/21

DOCKET NO. 15-05 328
DATE:       February 5, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from December 1961 to May 1965.

In June 2018 and November 2019, the Board remanded the above issue for additional development. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the AOJ complies with its directives; where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11Vet. App. 268 (1998). As explained below, further development is necessary with respect to the Veteran’s service connection claim for a neck disability. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded.

Regrettably, a remand is necessary for further development of the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a neck disability.

In November 2020, the AOJ issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) that addressed the Veteran’s service connection claim for a neck disability. At that time, the AOJ denied the Veteran’s service connection claim for a neck disability.

Subsequently, in November 2020, a VA opinion regarding the Veteran’s neck disability was obtained. As the November 2020 opinion was furnished after the issuance of the November 2020 SSOC, the November 2020 VA opinion was not considered in the November 2020 SSOC. There is no correspondence of record requesting to waive AOJ consideration. Therefore, in the absence of a direct waiver and to respect due process, the Board must remand this issue so that the AOJ can consider the new evidence of record since the November 2020 SSOC and appropriately readjudicate. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37(a).

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Readjudicate the claim. If the claim remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review.

 

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C. E. Grossman, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.