Citation Nr: 21025071 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 13-28 093 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for low back condition (claimed as low back injury) is remanded. Service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome, right hand is remanded. Service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome, left hand is remanded. Service connection for residuals of neck injury is remanded. Service connection for paralysis, right lower extremity is remanded. Service connection for paralysis, left lower extremity is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1975 until his honorable discharge in March 1979. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2011 rating decision by the Phoenix, Arizona, Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In November 2016, the Board remanded the case to the RO. Specifically, the Board directed the RO to attempt to obtain a valid address for the Veteran, provide him copies of the September 2013 and September 2015 statements of the case (SOC), reschedule him for VA examinations as to his claimed disabilities, and reschedule him for a videoconference hearing before the Board. It appears the Board’s November 2016 remand order was returned as undeliverable. The RO made various attempts to contact the Veteran, as documented within his claims file. In September 2018, the Veteran was able to contact the RO via phone. He informed the RO that he was having difficulty obtaining mail and all mail should be sent via FedEx or UPS ground. Nevertheless, the RO continued to send the Veteran correspondence via U.S. Postal Service. The correspondences were returned. Notably, the correspondences were mailed to an address other than the most recent address on file with VA. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the Veteran received all necessary correspondences from VA. A September 2018 VA Report of General Information indicates the Veteran informed the RO that he was in contact with the Veterans Evaluation Services to schedule his VA examinations, but he was unable to set up appointments due to his medical conditions. The RO chose to adjudicate the Veteran’s claims on appeal in an April 2019 supplemental statement of the case despite the lack of VA examinations. Because the Veteran never indicated he was unwilling to attend a VA examination, the Board finds the Veteran should be afforded another opportunity to attend VA examinations in relation to his claims for service connection. Finally, the case was returned to the Board without affording the Veteran a videoconference hearing, which he requested in his VA Form 9. As hearing matters are now scheduled by the Board, it will defer action on his hearing request pending completion of the matters below. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain any of the Veteran’s outstanding VA medical records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Attempt to determine the Veteran’s current contact information, including a current phone number and current mailing address. 3. If the Veteran’s current mailing address is confirmed, the RO, given the Veteran’s established difficulty in receiving timely VA communications through the U.S. Mail system, it should consider sending future notices to the Veteran, via FedEx or UPS with tracking and confirmation, copies of the following: (a.) September 2013 statement of the case (b.) September 2015 supplemental statement of the case (c.) December 2016 Board remand order (d.) April 2019 supplemental statement of the case 4. If the Veteran’s current contact information is confirmed, the RO is instructed to reschedule the Veteran for VA examinations as to the claims on appeal. Notices should be sent to the Veteran’s current mailing address via FedEx or UPS with tracking and confirmation. 5. Thereafter, reconsider the issues on appeal. (Should the Veteran still want a hearing with the Board, it will be scheduled once his claim is returned to the Board.) M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. F. Sawka, Associate 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.