Citation Nr: 21006776 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-50 192 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities, to include as secondary to service connected diabetes mellitus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June1968 to May 1971. In July 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decided the issue addressed in this decision. The Veteran appealed. In a September 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMFR), Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) remanded the claim finding that the April 2014 VA examiner’s opinion was inadequate. Specifically, the Court determined that although the examiner explained that Veteran has other risk factors for the development of peripheral neuropathy, she provided no rationale for her opinion that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus did not cause his peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities; nor did she provide an opinion on whether his diabetes aggravated his peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities . Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities, to include as secondary to service connected diabetes mellitus is remanded. The Veteran contends that the onset of his peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities is secondary to his service connected diabetes mellitus. As noted above, a remand is necessary for the April 2014 examiner to provide an opinion and rationale concerning whether the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus caused his peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities and whether the Veteran’s diabetes aggravated his peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the examiner who conducted the April 2014 VA examination for a peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran’s claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. After a thorough review of the medical history the examiner is requested to prepare a detailed opinion which answers the following: (a) Taking into consideration the Veteran’s STR’s, lay statements, post service VA and private treatment records, is it as likely as not (that is a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities is related to or aggravated by his service connected diabetes mellitus? If a pathology for the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy bilaterally of the upper extremities disorder is not found to be related to or aggravated by his service connected diabetes mellitus that should be specifically set out with the factors considered in making that determination. (b) In the alternative, is it as likely as not that the peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremities is related to any event or occurrence in service? Please provide a complete rationale for all opinions entered and review the entire record including lay statements and hearing testimony. If an examiner cannot provide any of the requested opinions, he/she must affirm that all procurable and assembled data was fully considered, and a detailed rationale must be provided for why an opinion cannot be rendered. The AOJ must ensure that the examiner’s report complies with this remand and answers the questions presented in the request. The AOJ must also ensure that the examiner documents consideration of the electronic claims file. If the report is insufficient, the AOJ should take corrective action. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elliot Harris, 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.