Citation Nr: 21007421 Decision Date: 02/09/21 Archive Date: 02/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 756 DATE: February 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right index finger laceration scars is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Army from July 1979 to July 1983, from November 2004 to November 2005, and from October 2009 to December 2011, with additional periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and deployment to Afghanistan from December 2010 to October 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2018, the Board denied the claim for entitlement to service connection for right index finger laceration scars. The Veteran appealed the November 2018 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a February 2020 order, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacating the Board’s November 2018 denial of service connection for right index finger laceration scars. The Court decided that the Board erred by violating its duty to assist the Veteran when it failed to obtain relevant evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. Specifically, the Court referred to the Veteran’s September 2016 lay statement in which she identified relevant medical evidence that VA did not make an effort to obtain. The Court then remanded the appeal to the Board for readjudication consistent with the JMPR. In June 2020, the Board remanded the claim to obtain outstanding service treatment records to comply with the February 2020 JMPR. Those records were obtained and associated with the claims file. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matter returns to the Board for appellate consideration. Entitlement to service connection for right index finger laceration scars is remanded. The Veteran contends that her right index finger laceration scars are related to service. Although the Board regrets the delay, another remand is required before the Board can issue an appellate decision. A February 2012 VA examiner reported that the Veteran has two right index finger laceration scars. The examiner also noted the Veteran reported that her right forefinger is numb to touch and hurts when clothes rub on the finger. In September 2016, the Veteran reported that she lacerated her right index finger while deployed and “attempted to obtain medical records from that particular clinic” but it was permanently closed. Pursuant to the June 2020 Board remand, the RO obtained outstanding service treatment records. A March 2012 post deployment assessment form, following the Veteran’s tour in Afghanistan, noted a complaint for numbness in the right index finger. See September 2020 STR Reserve. As such, the Board finds a retrospective opinion should be obtained to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s right index finger laceration scars. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from the February 2012 VA examiner or another qualified clinician. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand 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. The examiner must determine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) the Veteran’s right index laceration scars are related to her active duty service, to include periods of ACDUTRA? The examiner should consider the March 2012 post deployment assessment reflecting complaints for numbness in the right index finger. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s), in the examination report. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. Asfaw, 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.