Citation Nr: 21020952 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 13-34 378 DATE: April 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an arthritic condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from November 1968 to June 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in August 2016. This case was previously before the Board in September 2017, March 2019, June 2020, and November 2020, when it was remanded for development. The case has been returned to the Board for further appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for an arthritic condition is remanded. Unfortunately, yet another remand is necessary in this case. In the prior remand, the Board found the portion of the most recent VA opinion regarding osteoarthritis to be inadequate. The Board directed the RO to obtain an opinion regarding osteoarthritis of the back, elbows, and ankles that specifically addressed the Veteran’s August 2016 hearing testimony and any other lay statements regarding the onset of joint pain shortly after service. The examiner, in a February 2021 opinion, stated that there is “no evidence of joint conditions proximate to service,” when the Veteran testified that he sought treatment for joint pain after an in-service explosion knocked him from his bunk and shortly after service in 1971. The examiner did not address or even acknowledge the lay statements made by the Veteran, resulting in an opinion that impermissibly dismisses competent and credible reports made by the Veteran based solely on the fact they are not documented in contemporaneous medical records, see Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and that does not substantially comply with the remand directives, see Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). For these reasons, the opinion is inadequate and the record remains lacking sufficient medical evidence to decide this claim. A remand is therefore necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion regarding the relationship between the osteoarthritis and the Veteran’s service. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to an appropriate clinician to determine whether any current osteoarthritis is related to the Veteran’s military service. Following review of the claims file, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that EACH osteoarthritis disability (i.e., of the back, elbows, and ankles) identified in the August 2020 examination report began in or is otherwise caused by the Veteran’s active service, including injury from a November 1969 ammunition explosion that knocked the Veteran from his bunk. The examiner MUST specifically address the Veteran’s lay statements in the record regarding the onset of joint pain shortly after service. The examiner must consider and address, specifically, the Veteran’s August 2016 Board hearing testimony, where he described seeking treatment as early as 1971 and complaining of joint pain. The examiner must also address the Veteran’s report in the April 1971 VA examination that he was injured in November 1969 in the lower back and face, treated in a field hospital, and returned to duty without hospitalization. In providing the requested opinions, the examiner is informed that a portion of the Veteran’s service treatment records, including those relevant to the November 1969 blast injuries, are unavailable, but that the Veteran’s reports of the in-service injury are deemed credible. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Josey, 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.