Citation Nr: 21024937 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-37 231 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected right index finger, residuals, status post tender repaired is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for service-connected residuals, chronic dislocation, little finger, left hand is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Army from August 1982 to August 1985. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO). In August 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the transcript has been associated with the electronic claims file. In November 2019, the Board remanded the claims to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with the development sought as part of the November 2019 remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 1. The Claims on Appeal are Remanded. The Veteran contends that level impairment caused by the service-connected right index finger and left little finger are more severe than is reflected by their currently assigned evaluations. After review of the evidence, both lay and medical, the Board finds that a remand for additional development is necessary. As part of the August 2019 remand, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2020. The VA examiner diagnosed right index finger, residuals status post tendon repaired and residuals, chronic dislocation little finger. Records from both the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the VA were associated with the claims file on remand. SSA records show increased pain and decreased mobility in the right hand and no index DIP flexion. An MRI of the left hand showed osteophytic and subchondral cystic changes. Examination of the left hand showed no PLP flexion and a swan neck deformity secondary to PIP in the left little finger. VA treatment records reveal that in September 2020 the Veteran was potentially being scheduled for hand surgery. Additionally, it appears a January 2020 MRI was conducted that is not part of the record. Because the findings of the January 2020 examination appear inconsistent with other medical records and it appears the Veteran has undergone additional treatment for the service-connected fingers, a remand is necessary to ensure the Board has an adequate record to base its decision on. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate any VA treatment records since October 2020 with the electronic claims file. The AOJ should specifically associate any VA MRI reports with the claims. 2. After any records requested above have been obtained, schedule the Veteran for a VA orthopedic examination, to assess the current nature and severity of the service-connected bilateral hand disabilities. The VA examiner should review the evidence associated with the record. All necessary tests and studies should be conducted. The VA examiner is asked to specifically address: 1. Whether the Veteran has degenerative arteritis of either hand. 2. Whether the limitation of motion and impairment in the Veteran’s service-connected right index and left little fingers approximates ankylosis. The examiner is specifically asked to comment on findings of no flexion in the in the right index finger and left little finger. Finally, the examiner should discuss the impact, if any, as well as a full description of the effects, that the Veteran's bilateral hand disabilities have upon his ability to perform ordinary activities of daily living. The examiner should conduct any appropriate tests and studies in order to determine the nature and extent of the social and industrial impairment attributable to the service-connected hand disabilities. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Teague, 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.