Citation Nr: 21025645 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-44 162 DATE: April 28, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from February 1973 to October 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Board hearing was held in December 2018. A transcript is of record. The matter was remanded in April 2019 and August 2020. The August 2020 remand directed that an opinion be obtained regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed hand disability. The Board specified that the reviewing clinician should discuss the effect of the Veteran’s exposure to cold weather in Alaska as well as an alleged injury from a hydraulic hose during service. The Board also specified that the clinician should discuss the Veteran’s report of having arthritis in his hands during a June 2012 VA psychosocial assessment. In November 2020, a physician reviewed the record and concluded that the Veteran’s claimed hand disability was not related to service. While he considered the Veteran’s exposure to cold and alleged in-service injury, he did not discuss the Veteran’s 2012 report of having arthritis in his hands. Rather, he reasoned, in part, that degenerative joint disease was not diagnosed until 2019. A remand by the Board confers on an appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the terms of the remand order and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Thus, remand is necessary to ensure that the Veteran’s 2102 lay report is considered. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral hand disability. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should identify all relevant diagnoses referable to the Veteran’s hands. The examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not that any such condition was incurred in, or is otherwise related to active service. The examiner should discuss the effect, if any, of the Veteran’s exposure to cold weather in Alaska and the alleged injury from a hydraulic hose. The examiner should also discuss the Veteran’s alleged onset of arthritis in a June 2012 psychosocial assessment. In rendering this opinion, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. The complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. (Continued on the next page)   2. Then, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an appropriate period within which to respond thereto. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.