Citation Nr: 21026876 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-06 692 DATE: May 4, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a right elbow condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1957 to July 1959. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2019 the Veteran presented testimony at a video hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that proceeding has been associated with the claims file. In a November 2019 decision, the Board denied the issue on appeal. The Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) and remanded the issue to the Board. This appeal has been advanced on the docket. 38 U.S.C. § 7107; 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Service Connection- Right elbow First, remand is necessary to attempt to obtain outstanding private treatment records. VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). This includes making reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private medical records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1). Additionally, there is a heighted duty to assist because the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) were destroyed in the 1973 fire. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996). During the April 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran stated he received orthopedic treatment for his right elbow seven or eight years after service. There have been no attempts to obtain the private treatment records. Accordingly, remand is required. Second, remand is required for an adequate addendum opinion. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). During the April 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran stated he continued to have right elbow pain after service. In a December 2020 statement, the Veteran's representative indicated the September 2012 VA examination was inadequate. The Veteran's representative noted the Veteran's April 2019 Board hearing testimony. The examiner did not address the Veteran's statements regarding continued symptoms after service, including private treatment seven to eight years after service. Accordingly, remand is required to address the Veteran's statements. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all updated records (i.e., those not already of record) of VA and adequately identified private treatment the Veteran has received for the disabilities remaining on appeal. Obtain authorization from the Veteran regarding 1960s private orthopedic treatment. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by [an appropriate clinician] 3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, obtain an addendum opinion to determine the nature and cause of the right elbow condition. Based on a review of the record, the examiner must respond to the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the right elbow condition had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active service. The examiner must specifically address the following: 1) October 1958 letter regarding in-service injury; 2) Veteran's statements that pain continued after service, including April 2019 Board hearing testimony; and 3) any relevant private treatment records added as a result of this remand. [CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] All opinions must include a detailed explanation (rationale). (By law, the Board may not rely on any conclusion that is unsupported by a thorough explanation. Providing such an opinion or conclusion will delay processing of the claim and may require further clarification). VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Bruton, 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.