Citation Nr: 21029788 Decision Date: 05/17/21 Archive Date: 05/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 040 DATE: May 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND DD Forms 214 of record refect that the Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1966 to December 1968, and from December 1970 to January 1986, to include service in Vietnam. The DD Forms 214 and other evidence also reflect additional service beyond those dates, to include service in the Army National Guard. His decorations include the National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana. This case was previously before the Board in December 2020, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, another remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim and to afford him every possible consideration. 1. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is remanded. The Veteran contends, in essence, that he has peripheral neuropathy of his upper extremities that is related to service. In the December 2020 remand, the Board directed the AOJ to obtain an addendum medical opinion as to whether the Veteran had upper extremity neuropathy, and if so, whether the neuropathy had its onset in service or was proximately due to or aggravated beyond natural progression by his service-connected coronary artery disease. An addendum opinion was obtained in January 2021. The examiner found that the Veteran lacked a "chronic diagnosis" of peripheral neuropathy of either upper extremity. The examiner noted that the current objective examination was normal and that there was no supportive documentation of an upper extremity neuropathy found within the Veteran's medical record. A VA treatment record from October 2016 notes neuropathy that is under mild control with Gabapentin, without explicitly indicating whether the neuropathy is limited to the lower extremities. Under applicable law, even though the Veteran may not have had a diagnosis of upper extremity neuropathy at the time of the January 2021 examination, he can still be service connected for the condition if he had the disability at any time during the pendency of his claim, even if the condition has since resolved. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Because it is not entirely clear whether the October 2016 treatment note can be read to suggest the presence of an upper extremity neuropathy, the Board will seek an addendum opinion. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. Arrange to provide the record on appeal to the VA examiner who previously offered opinions with respect to the Veteran's bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy in January 2021. The examiner should be asked to review the record and offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that an October 2016 VA treatment record noting neuropathy under mild control with Gabapentin (or any of the other evidence of record) is indicative of the presence of a neuropathy of either upper extremity, or whether it is more likely a reference to the lower extremities only. Significantly, under the law, in order to be considered to have had a "current" disability, the Veteran only needs to have had a disability when the claim was filed or during the pendency of the claim (i.e., at any time since May 2015), even if the condition has since resolved. If, and only if, it is the examiner's conclusion from review of the October 2016 VA treatment record and other evidence of record that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has had a neuropathy of either upper extremity at any time since May 2015, the examiner is asked to provide opinions as to each as the following questions: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran has had peripheral neuropathy of either upper extremity at any time since May 2015 that had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service? (b.) If not, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran has had peripheral neuropathy of either upper extremity at any time since May 2015 that was caused by his service-connected coronary artery disease? (c.) If not, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran has had peripheral neuropathy of either upper extremity at any time since May 2015 that was aggravated by his service-connected coronary artery disease? If the January 2021 examiner is no longer employed by VA, or is otherwise unable to provide the opinion requested, arrange to obtain the requested information from another qualified examiner. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner(s) selected to offer the requested opinions. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Joseph T. Leonard, 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.