Citation Nr: 21015743 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 14-06 144 DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of major joints is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1967 to November 1978. This matter was previously remanded by the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) in September 2018 and June 2020 for additional development. It now returns for further appellate review. 1. Arthritis of major joints Although further delay is regrettable, the Board finds a remand is necessary to ensure compliance with the June 2020 Board remand directives. The Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for arthritis of major joints (excluding his service-connected right elbow, right shoulder, cervical spine, and degenerative spine disabilities) for an addendum medical opinion. Specifically, the Board directed the Regional Office (RO) to obtain an addendum medical opinion to address the Veteran’s contention that his arthritis was related to radiation exposure during his service as a radar technician. See June 2020 Board Decision. Pursuant to the Board remand, in December 2020 the RO obtained several medical opinions regarding the Veteran’s arthritis of his feet, knees, and hands. However, the December 2020 VA examiner only addressed the Veteran’s contention of radiation exposure as to the Veteran’s feet. See December 2020 VA Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ); December 2020 VA Medical Opinion DBQ. Regarding, the Veteran’s arthritis in his bilateral hands and knees, the examiner stated that these conditions were considered presumptive conditions, and she could not render an opinion because “there was no evidence that Veteran actually had x-ray to confirm this.” See i.e., December 2020 VA Medical Opinion DBQ (addressing the Veteran’s right knee). Although, the RO partially complied with the June 2020 Board remand which sought an addendum medical opinion addressing the Veteran’s radiation exposure, the Board finds that the VA examiner did not address whether radiation exposure could have caused the Veteran’s arthritis in his hands and knees. As such, the Board finds that substantial compliance with the June 2020 Board remand has not been met. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998)(A remand by the Board confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand orders.) Thus, on remand the RO should obtain an addendum medical opinion which addresses whether radiation exposure could have caused the Veteran’s arthritis in his hands and knees. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Board recognizes the potential practical difficulties in scheduling an examination in light of the COVID-19 epidemic and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran any warranted examination.   2. Forward the claims file to the December 2020 VA examiner, or an examiner with appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s current major arthritis in his bilateral hands and feet.  The claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the reviewing examiner, and the examiner should indicate in the report that the claims file was reviewed.   3. The examiner is requested to provide the following:   4. Opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral hand and bilateral knee arthritis is related to or caused by the Veteran’s active service to include any radiation exposure incurred as a result of the Veteran’s duty as a radar technician. 5. The examiner should comment on whether the Veteran’s assertions that his bilateral hand and bilateral knee arthritis was caused by his radiation exposure incurred as a result of the Veteran’s duty as a radar technician consistent with medical knowledge or implausible?    (a.) If not, state why not and on what basis this conclusion was made.    (b.) If so, state why not and on what basis this conclusion was made.    (c.) THE EXAMINER MUST DISCUSS THE VETERAN’S LAY STATEMENTS REGARDING THE HISTORY AND EXPSOURE TO RADIATION AS A RESULT OF HIS DUTY AS A RADAR TECHNICIAN. • Any opinion expressed by the VA examiner should be accompanied by a complete rationale. • If medical literature is relied upon in rendering this determination, the VA examiner should identify and specifically cite each reference material utilized.     • IF THE VA EXAMINER IS UNABLE TO OFFER AN OPINION WITHOUT RESORTING TO SPECULATION, A THOROUGH EXPLANATION AS TO WHY AN OPINION CANNOT BE RENDERED SHOULD BE PROVIDED.    6. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL.  IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED.   IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION.  (continued on the next page) YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Lilly, Associate Attorney 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.