Citation Nr: 21025284 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 11-22 310 DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right heel disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal disability, claimed as gastroenteritis and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from March 1977 to January 1982, and in the Army from October 1988 to June 1993. In May 2016, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. When this case was before the Board in September 2016, January 2018, and May 2019, the above-noted issues were remanded for further development. The case has since been returned for additional appellate review. REASONS FOR REMAND Further delay of this matter is untenable; however, the Board finds additional development is again required before the Veteran’s remaining claims are decided. As previously noted, a remand by the Board confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In the course of the May 2019 remand, the Board found addendum medical opinions from the March 2017 VA examiner were necessary prior to final adjudication of the above-noted matters. However, the RO subsequently scheduled the Veteran for VA examinations in November 2019. Thereafter, the RO contacted the Veteran in January 2021, at which time he stated he did not want to continue his appeal. However, to date the Veteran has not provided a withdrawal of his claims in writing, and as such, his appeal remains active. As such, the Board finds substantial compliance with the prior remand instructions has not been achieved, as the RO was instructed to merely obtain addendum medical opinions, rather than examinations which would not require the Veteran’s presence. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Contact the Veteran and his representative to determine whether he wishes to withdraw the above-noted appeals and advise him that if he does intend to withdraw his pending appeals such withdrawal must be in writing. 2. If the Veteran does not wish to withdraw his appeals, obtain addendum medical opinions from the Veteran’s March 2017 VA examiner, if available, and if unavailable from an examiner other than the January 2018 examiner, who is competent to address the etiology of the Veteran’s right heel and gastrointestinal disabilities. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Another examination of the Veteran should be performed only if deemed necessary by the examiner providing the opinions. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should state an opinion with respect to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any right heel or gastrointestinal disability diagnosed during the pendency of this appeal, to specifically include right foot calcaneal bursitis, right heel calcaneal spur, or gastroesophageal reflux disease originated during the Veteran’s period of active service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any proffered opinion. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements, and assume such statements are credible for purposes of the opinions. Specifically, the examiner should discuss the Veteran’s reports of heel pain following multiple parachute jumps, which has persisted to the present time. The examiner should also discuss the Veteran’s reports of experiencing “heartburn” in service, which has persisted to the present time. (Continued on the next page)   If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he must provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Fraser, 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.