Citation Nr: 21025226 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 14-37 541 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right hand pain at digits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from September 1999 to May 2000, December 2003 to March 2005, January 2011 to February 2012, and from May 2016 to May 2017. In February 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims folder. This matter was previously before the Board in January 2021 and was remanded for further development. The matters have been returned to the Board for further adjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right hand pain at digits is remanded. A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. Where the remand orders of the Board were not complied with, the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Regrettably, additional development is necessary before the Veteran’s claim can be finally adjudicated. In his June 2019 VA hand/finger examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral hand strain. The Board previously found the associated opinion inadequate as the examiner relied on the non-documentation of chronicity of care and/or treatment to support a negative opinion. The Veteran was afforded a new VA examination in February 2021. The February 2021 examiner found no objective evidence of bilateral hand strain during the examination. In light of the normal examination, the examiner did not render an opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s condition. The examiner’s opinion disregards prior diagnoses in the Veteran’s medical record of bilateral hand strain as well as direct references to said diagnoses in the January 2021 remand. The requirement for a current disability is satisfied if the disability is shown at any time subsequent to filing the claim, even if not shown currently. McLain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). The Board, therefore, finds the opinion inadequate for the purpose of deciding this claim. Accordingly, remand is appropriate in order to obtain new medical opinions regarding the Veteran’s bilateral hand disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4) (2016); also see Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the entire claims file, including a copy of this remand to the February 2021 VA examiner for an addendum opinion. All pertinent evidence should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. All appropriate testing should be conducted. The examiner should identify any hand conditions present, including acknowledging the prior diagnosis of bilateral hand strain. For each diagnosis present throughout the pendency of the claim, including bilateral hand strain, the examiner should state whether it is as least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent or greater probability) that the disability began in or is related to the Veteran’s military service. The Veteran’s lay contentions must be considered and weighed in making the determination as to whether a nexus exists between his active service and any hand disability present during the pendency of this claim and appeal. If the examiner believes that the prior diagnosis of bilateral hand strain was in error, the examiner should provide a rationale to support this finding, otherwise, the examiner should provide a nexus regarding this diagnosis. The examiner is asked to explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached. The examiner is reminded that the term “as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility,” but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner’s expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as it is to find against it. All opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If the examiner opines that any of the above questions cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. (Continued on the next page) 2. After ensuring compliance with these objectives, the AOJ should readjudicate the claim. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Sherman 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.