Citation Nr: 21008846 Decision Date: 02/18/21 Archive Date: 02/18/21 DOCKET NO. 16-13 066 DATE: February 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder of the right upper extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder of the left upper extremity is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from December 1966 to September 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2019 and the Board remanded the claims in March 2020 for further development. Of note, a claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss was previously on appeal, but the RO granted that claim in October 2020. Consequently, as this matter has been fully resolved, as this is considered a full grant of benefits, it will not be further addressed. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). The Board regrets further delay, but another remand is needed for an adequate addendum opinion. In opining that the Veteran’s bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy with cervical radiculopathy was not related to service, the May 2020 VA examiner inappropriately relied on an absence of documented treatment in the Veteran’s service records, and did not consider his competent and credible testimony as to an onset of upper extremity neurological symptoms in service. Thus, on remand, an addendum opinion that adequately considers the lay evidence of record is warranted. Outstanding VA treatment records should also be secured. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain all outstanding private treatment records. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from a VA examiner other than the October 2012 and May 2020 VA examiners concerning the etiology of the Veteran’s neurological disorder of the bilateral upper extremities. The claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available for review. No additional examination of the Veteran is necessary, unless the reviewing examiner deems otherwise. The examiner is requested to provide an opinion (without such VA requirement of objective findings, and solely based on a clinical opinion) on whether it is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s diagnosed peripheral neuropathy of bilateral upper extremities with cervical radiculopathy had its onset in or is otherwise related to service, to include as a result of his November 1968 in-service complaint of right index finger numbness and/or of the cumulative impact of the rigors of service as an electrician. In answering this question, please accept as true the Veteran’s competent and credible report of an initial onset of numbness in his hands, right and left shoulder, and neck during service in 1967-8, that he was “zapped” twice a day during rainy season, and that he fell on the floor due to heavy waves, although undocumented. See December 2019 Board Hearing at11-12, 19-20. After conceding this information, please determine whether a nexus to service is “medically plausible.” Please note that the absence of evidence of treatment in the Veteran’s service treatment records or in the records following service separation cannot, standing alone, serve as the basis for a negative opinion. Please state whether there is any medical reason for rejecting the Veteran’s statements. If unable to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, an explanation as to why this is so and what, if any, additional evidence would be necessary before an opinion could be rendered should be provided. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. J. Rogers, 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.