Citation Nr: 21011770 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 06-34 346 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability.is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee strain is remanded. 4. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral pes planus is remanded. 5. Entitlement to a compensable rating for right foot plantar fasciitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from August 1986 to December 1989. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2006 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In October 2016 a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the claims file. The matters were previously remanded for additional development in May 2017. 1., 2., 3., 4., 5. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability and a left shoulder disability, entitlement to rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee strain and bilateral pes planus, and entitlement to a compensable rating for right foot plantar fasciitis. The May 2017 Board remand directed the RO to schedule the Veteran for orthopedic examinations to determine the nature and etiology of his low back and left shoulder disabilities, and to assess the severity of the Veteran’s right knee, bilateral per planus, and plantar fasciitis disabilities. The directives noted that the Veteran resides in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that reasonable accommodations should be made in consideration of his residence. The record reflects that the RO called the Veteran in June 2019 to inquire “if and when he would like a VA examination appointment.” The record indicates that the call was received with a “negative response” and that the Veteran would be sent a letter asking him to call to provide dates and times that work for him. The Veteran called in response to the letter in July 2019 and told the RO that he was still out of the country but would be in the United States on November 18, 2019 and November 19, 2019. The Veteran also stated that he would be able to do an examination anywhere in Philadelphia as long as he had 60 days’ notice and that the entire month of July is available. In September 2019, despite having been provided with both specific and general availability, the RO mailed the Veteran a form to provide dates that he would “indeed be in the country.” The RO did not receive a response to the September 2019 correspondence, nor to an e-mail sent in February 2020, and in April 2020 issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case and returned the case to the Board. Given the specific responses provided by the Veteran in July 2019 (which were not timely acted upon) and the ambiguity in the record regarding whether the Veteran is being adequately informed actually received the September 2019 and February 2020 communications (considering his location at a Federal facility overseas), the Board finds that additional efforts to arrange for an examination of the Veteran are necessary to ensure compliance with the Board’s prior remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: In coordination with the Veteran and his DAV representative, and in consideration of his current residence, affording all reasonable accommodations therefor, arrange for an orthopedic examination of the Veteran to determine the nature and likely etiology of his current low back and left shoulder disabilities, and to assess the severity of his right and bilateral pes planus and right foot plantar fasciitis disabilities. [If an examination of the Veteran at a time when he is available at a location where one can be conducted cannot be arranged, there must be a detailed explanation for the record why that is so (and the scope of the attempts to do so must be described in detail). It must be adequately documented that he received the attempted contacts, and had opportunity to respond.] The entire record should be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Based on review of the record and examination and interview of the Veteran the examiner should provide opinions that respond to the following: (a) Identify by diagnosis each low back and left shoulder disability found. (b) Regarding each low back disability diagnosed, opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50% or higher probability) it is related to the symptoms he experienced in service. (c) Regarding each left shoulder disability diagnosed, opine whether it is at least as likely as not that it is etiologically related to his service, or was caused or aggravated (the opinion must address aggravation) by the Veteran's service connected right knee strain, bilateral pes planus, and/or right foot plantar fasciitis. The rationale for the opinion must include comment on (expression, with rationale, of agreement or disagreement with) the opinion offered by the 2006 VA examiner. (d) Assess the severity of the Veteran's right knee, bilateral per planus, and plantar fasciitis disabilities. Complete findings (and functional impairment) related to each disability should be described in detail. All indicated studies must be completed, to include range of motion studies of the right knee (with notation of any additional functional limitations due to factors such as weakness, pain, incoordination, weight-bearing, fatigue, use, etc.) and tests for instability. The examiner should comment on any restrictions on occupational and daily activity functions due to the disabilities. (If the examiner finds that the examinations for the foot disabilities should appropriately be by separate podiatry consult, such should be arranged.) The examiner must include rationale that cites to supporting factual data and medical principles with all opinions GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Baker, 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.