Citation Nr: 21032538 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 12-14 144 DATE: May 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for disability manifested by impaired circulation of the lower extremities is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of sunburn to the chest, legs and back is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for disability manifested by non-healing wounds is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1982 to June 1986. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (RO) Regional Office (RO). In September 2014, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who is no longer available to decide the appeal. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In April 2015, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. In a March 2016 decision, the Board, in pertinent part, denied the instant claims. The Veteran appealed. In a December 2016 Order, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) granted a joint motion for remand by the parties and remanded the claims back to the Board for action consistent with the joint motion. In May 2017, the Board remanded the claims for further development. Because the VLJ who held the previous September 2014 Board hearing is no longer available to decide the appeal, the Veteran was given the opportunity to have a new Board hearing before a current VLJ. That hearing was held in December 2020 before the undersigned VLJ; a transcript of the hearing is of record. Remands In March 2018, the Board requested medical expert opinions concerning the likely etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot disability and the likely etiology of lower extremity circulatory disability/non-healing wounds, including whether such problems constituted residuals of in-service sunburn. Initial VHA opinions concerning the bilateral feet and circulatory disability were received in May 2018. In a September 2018 request, the Board requested clarifying opinions. A clarifying opinion concerning the bilateral foot disability was received in November 2018. In a Medical Opinion Response Form received in July 2019, the Veteran indicated that he was not waiving RO consideration of the VHA opinions and requested that the case be remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for initial consideration of this new evidence. There is no indication that the Veteran subsequently rescinded this request. Consequently, to ensure appropriate due process, the Veteran's claims will be remanded to the AOJ for readjudication with consideration of the VHA opinions, along with all other evidence added to the record since the most recent November 2017 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), including an updated March 2021 private medical opinion received in April 2021 concerning the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot disability. Prior to readjudicating the claims, the AOJ should obtain updated VA treatment records dated from October 2020 to the present. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records dated from October 2020 to the present. 2. Readjudicate the Veteran's claims, with consideration of all evidence associated with the Veteran's claims file since the issuance of the November 2017 SSOC. Readjudication should include review of the May 2018 VA podiatry opinion, May 2018 vascular surgery opinion, November 2018 VA podiatry opinion, March 2021 private medical opinion (received in April 2021), any other pertinent medical evidence, and any pertinent lay evidence, including the Veteran's contentions. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Dan Brook, 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.