Citation Nr: 21009441 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 16-43 636 DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for plantar warts of the feet is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to March 1971. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. In April 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A hearing transcript is associated with the record. In October 2019, the Board remanded the claim for further development. Entitlement to a compensable rating for plantar warts of the feet is remanded. The Veteran, and his representative, contends that he is entitled to a compensable rating for his plantar warts disability. For reasons explained below, the Board finds that remand is necessary. A remand by the Board imposes upon the Secretary of VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. Where remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs in failing to ensure compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). An October 2019 Board decision remanded the claim for, among other things, an examination and medical opinions. Although an examination report and medical opinions were obtained, in January 2020, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s remand. Here, the obtained VA medical opinions are inadequate for adjudicative purposes because they do not fully answer the Board’s questions. Specifically, the October 2019 Board remand directed the clinician to identify, since September 2012, what medications the Veteran has used to treat his plantar warts; and to opine on, among other things, whether such medication represented a systemic therapy, such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs. In this instance, the clinician did not provide the Board with the requested opinions. Indeed, in answering the requested questions, the clinician simply stated that the Veteran did not use any medication or tropical treatment. However, as explained in the October 2019 Board remand, the record contains evidence that the Veteran was prescribed Salicylic Acid top lotion to treat his plantar warts. The opinions, nevertheless, did not consider such evidence. Thus, the opinions, in this case, do not reveal substantial compliance with the Board’s remand. Accordingly, as the Board has a duty to ensure compliance with the terms of its remand, remand is again required. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. 268. Lastly, the Board recognizes that the Veteran’s representative expressed his intention to challenge the competency of the clinician who provided the January 2020 VA medical opinions. See Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As the Board has found the medical opinions inadequate, this challenge is moot. In remanding this matter, the Board makes no finding, implicit or otherwise, as to the credibility of the Veteran’s assertions. Neither the Veteran’s credibility nor any lack thereof should be presumed in this remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records dated from June 2020 to the Present. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran’s plantar warts of the feet. The entire claims file, to include a copy of this REMAND, should be made available to and reviewed by the clinician. Based on review of the record, detail the Veteran’s reported symptoms, including the nature, onset, progression and severity of any symptoms consistent with his plantar warts of the feet. The opinion should also identify and explain the relevance or significance, as appropriate, of any history, clinical findings, medical knowledge or literature, etc., relied upon in reaching the conclusion(s). The clinician should: (a) Identify, since September 2012, what medications the Veteran has used to treat his plantar warts? (i) For each and every identified medication, to include Salicylic Acid top lotion, please state whether it represents a systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs. (ii) Does any topical treatment operate by affecting the body as a whole in treating the Veteran’s plantar warts? The examiner’s considerations, must include, but are not limited to, Salicylic Acid top lotion. (iii) Is any medication used since September 2012 “like” a corticosteroid or other immunosuppressive drug? (iv) For each and every medication that is “like” a corticosteroid or other immunosuppressive drug, identify the length of time that each medication was required since September 2012. (b) As the Veteran has reported that he has painful feet with limited mobility due to his plantar warts of the feet, opine on whether there is functional loss or impairment of either foot due to pain that is at least as likely as not proximately due to or aggravated by his service-connected plantar warts of the feet. Please explain. It is noted that the Veteran reports that his foot pain associated with his nonservice-connected gout is different from that associated with his service-connected plantar warts—please obtain additional information as may be needed from the Veteran in this regard. 3. Ensure that the VA medical opinions obtained include a complete rationale for the conclusions reached. The medical opinions must support the conclusions reached with an analysis that is adequate for the Board to consider and weigh against other evidence of record; medical opinions must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the clinician so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. 4. Readjudicate. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Griffey, 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.