Citation Nr: 21021919 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-28 828 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for left arm peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure or as secondary to a left shoulder condition, is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1968 to June 1971, to include in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2014, the Veteran testified before a Decision Review Officer in Cleveland, Ohio, at a Regional Office hearing. The Veteran also testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a travel board hearing in June 2015. The Veteran was informed that the VLJ is no longer employed by the Board and declined the opportunity to testify at another Board hearing. Transcripts from both hearings have been associated with the claims file. This case was previously before the Board in October 2016 and November 2018, at which time it was remanded for additional development. The Board regrets the additional delay, but further development is required prior to adjudication of the issues on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition is remanded. The Board remanded this claim in November 2018 to obtain an addendum opinion that considered the Veteran’s lay statements describing an in-service left shoulder injury. A VA addendum opinion was completed in November 2019 in response to the Board’s November 2018 remand. The reviewing clinician noted that orthopedic shoulder injuries are common during military service but issued a negative opinion. In support of the opinion, she cited the lack of documented left shoulder pathology apart from mild arthritis, coupled with the lack of any continuity in the Veteran’s medical records. Unfortunately, it appears that the clinician who issued the November 2019 addendum opinion still did not consider the Veteran’s lay statements describing the onset and continuation of his left shoulder symptomatology. As a result, an additional opinion is needed on remand. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left arm peripheral neuropathy, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure or as secondary to a left shoulder condition, is remanded. One of the Veteran’s assertions in connection with this issue is that he has left arm peripheral neuropathy that was caused or aggravated by his left shoulder condition. Because a decision on the remanded claim for service connection for a left shoulder condition could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for left arm peripheral neuropathy, the issues are inextricably intertwined. For that reason, remand of the claim for service connection for left arm peripheral neuropathy is also required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Send the claims file to an appropriate clinician for review. If an examination is deemed necessary to respond to the question posed, one should be scheduled. Following review of the claims file, the clinician should respond to the following: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s current left shoulder condition is related to the in-service incident in which, during a rocket attack in Vietnam in 1970, he dislocated his left shoulder when he jumped over a sandbag, tripped, and landed on it wrong? Please assume, solely for the purpose of answering the above question, that the Veteran did dislocate his left shoulder in service during the above-described incident. In reaching your conclusion, please consider and discuss the Veteran’s reports that he has experienced recurrent left shoulder dislocations since that incident and that his shoulder symptoms have gotten continuously worse since that incident. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner is reminded that the lack of a documented injury cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. The Veteran’s lay contentions must be considered and weighed in making the determination as to whether a nexus exists between the current disability and event in service. Any opinions offered should be accompanied by the underlying reasons for the conclusions. The clinician must provide a complete rationale for the opinions provided. L. STEPANICK Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Lang, Attorney Advisor 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.