Citation Nr: 21007562 Decision Date: 02/10/21 Archive Date: 02/10/21 DOCKET NO. 08-36 706 DATE: February 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability, to include as secondary to the service-connected temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1999 to October 2001. This current matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2009 rating decision. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in September 2012. In October 2013 and December 2017, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded this appeal for further evidentiary development. In May 2018, the Board denied the issue. The Veteran then appealed this matter to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). In July 2019, the Court remanded the appeal back to the Board, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). In January 2020, the Board remanded the appeal for further evidentiary development in accordance with the JMR. The January 2020 Board remand specifically asked for a VA examination to be obtained to address: 1) whether the Veteran’s bilateral shoulder condition is at least as likely as not related to the in-service microtraumas from her in-service training (including physical training and the use of weapons) and her involvement in a motor vehicle accident; and 2) whether the condition is secondary to her service-connected TMJ. The Veteran underwent a VA shoulder and arm conditions examination later in January 2020. The examiner opined against service connection on a direct or secondary basis for the Veteran’s bilateral shoulder disability, but did not sufficiently discuss the theories the Board remand directed to be addressed. Thus, the Regional Office (RO) obtained an addendum opinion from the examiner in August 2020 to address the deficiencies in the January 2020 opinions. The August 2020 VA addendum opinion, however, only addressed deficiencies related to the secondary service connection opinion. In this regard, the Board acknowledges that the August 2020 addendum opinion supports secondary service connection for the Veteran’s bilateral shoulder condition, as related to her service-connected TMJ. Unfortunately, however, the addendum opinion did not discuss direct service connection as directed by the Board and the RO. Because direct service connection is the greater benefit, as compared to secondary service connection, the Board finds that a sufficient opinion is needed to address direct service connection as directed by the January 2020 Board remand. Compliance with remand instructions is neither optional nor discretionary. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with remand orders. Id. As the RO failed to comply with the directive of the 2020 Board remand as it pertains to direct service connection, the Board has no recourse but to remand this issue again to ensure that the previously requested development is completed. Id. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an examination from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s bilateral shoulder disability at least as likely as not onset in, or is otherwise related to, her service, including the in service microtraumas from her in-service training (to include physical training and the use of weapons) and her involvement in a motor vehicle accident. Complete rationale should be provided for all opinions rendered. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Davidoski, 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.