Citation Nr: 21011719
Decision Date: 03/02/21	Archive Date: 03/02/21

DOCKET NO. 19-23 253
DATE: March 2, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for left ankle disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty with the U.S. Navy from August 2001 to October 2005, to include service in Southwest Asia.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. 

In December 2019, the Board remanded the claim to obtain all private treatment records and to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination.  The Veteran missed the VA examination scheduled in February 2020 due to hardships he was dealing with at the time and requested the opportunity to reschedule in April 2020 by telephone and in a June 2020 letter. The appeal was returned to the Board without rescheduling the examination.

Upon review, the Board finds that remand is warranted to ensure compliance with the December 2019 remand directives as the Veteran has shown good cause for failing to appear at the scheduled examination. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

This matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current disability of the left ankle onset during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include his service in Southwest Asia.  

The examiner should elicit a full history from the Veteran and consider the lay statements of record.  The Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, and if there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. 

A rationale for all opinions expressed is requested as adjudicators are precluded from making any medical findings.

2. Then, the record should again be reviewed.  If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond. 

 

C.B. Iwanowski

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. J. Kim, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.