Citation Nr: 21024704 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 14-32 362A DATE: April 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a vein circulatory disorder of the left leg is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active service in the United States Navy from June 1976 to June 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) during a March 2020 videoconference hearing. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. This case was previously before the Board in April 2020 when it was remanded for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for a vein circulatory disorder of the left leg is remanded. Unfortunately, the Board finds that additional development must be conducted prior to adjudication of the Veteran’s claim. The Veteran contends that he has a vein circulatory disorder in his left leg related to his in-service experience as a cook standing on his feet for up to 17 hours a day. Specifically, the Veteran testified during the March 2020 hearing that he began having pain and swelling during active service that has continued to the present. During a September 2020 VA examination, the examiner stated that the Veteran reported the onset of pain was in 1978 during service and that he was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis in 1999. The examiner further indicated that the Veteran was currently prescribed Lisinopril for the condition. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s claimed vein circulatory disorder of the left leg was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the Veteran’s claimed in-service injury. The rationale was that there was insufficient evidence of in-service records that show complaints of vein circulatory disorder of the left leg during service and no evidence of chronicity of care. The Board finds that the VA examiner improperly dismissed the Veteran’s lay statements based on an absence of supporting medical evidence. See generally Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When VA provides an examination or obtains an opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Accordingly, a remand is required to obtain a VA medical opinion to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed left leg condition. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Submit the claims file to a VA examiner for an opinion regarding that etiology of the Veteran’s claimed left leg vein circulatory disorder. The claims file must be available to and reviewed by the VA examiner. If an additional examination (or telehealth interview, as appropriate) is deemed warranted, one should be arranged. After a review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s left leg vein circulatory disorder had its onset in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s period of honorable active service (from June 1976 to June 1979), to include the Veteran’s competent and credible reports of swelling and pain related to standing for extended periods (16-hour shifts) as a cook. A rationale should be provided for all opinions offered. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or rely solely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. CAROLINE B. FLEMING Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Connor, Lindsey 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.