Citation Nr: 21040628 Decision Date: 07/06/21 Archive Date: 07/06/21 DOCKET NO. 18-36 323 DATE: July 6, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a right knee disability is granted. Service connection for a left knee disability is granted. Service connection for a lipoma is denied. Service connection for sarcoidosis is denied. Service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is denied. REMANDED Service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Service connection for a right hand disability is remanded. Service connection for a left hand disability is remanded. Service connection for head trauma is remanded. Service connection for headaches is remanded. Service connection for a psychiatric disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The probative evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's right knee disability is etiologically related to active duty service. 2. The probative evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's left knee disability is etiologically related to active duty service. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has had a lipoma or residuals of a lipoma during the period on appeal that is related to active military service or events therein. 4. Sarcoidosis is not shown to be etiologically related to service. 5. COPD is not shown to be etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. With resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for a grant of service connection for a right knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). 2. With resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for a grant of service connection for a left knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 3. The criteria for service connection for a lipoma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 4. The criteria for service connection for sarcoidosis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 5. The criteria for service connection for COPD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from July 1970 to September 1976. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a December 2019 hearing and a transcript is of record. These matters are on appeal from May 2015 and January 2016 rating decisions. In a May 2014 administrative decision, VA determined that the Veteran's service from July 15, 1970 through July 14, 1973 was under honorable conditions and was not a bar to VA benefits under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.13(c) (2020). However, VA also determined that the Veteran's service from July 15, 1973 to September 27, 1976 was under other than honorable conditions and is a bar to VA benefits under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(1) (2020). The Board will therefore only consider the Veteran's period of active duty service from July 1970 to July 1973 for the purposes of service connection. In his March 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran checked the boxes to appeal service connection as well as the effective dates of awards and evaluations of disabilities. Because VA has not granted service connection for any of the disabilities on appeal, the issues of the effective dates of awards and evaluations of disabilities are not applicable to this appeal. The Veteran's claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been recharacterized as a psychiatric disability, to include PTSD. The Veteran's claim for service connection for an abnormal spine has been recharacterized as separate claims for neck and low back disabilities. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). In a November 2019 letter, the Veteran's attorney requested copies of the curriculum vitae of the VA examiner. The Veteran is entitled to this information as part of VA's duty to assist. Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377 (2019). The Veteran's attorney did not specify any particular VA examiner but, even assuming that this request includes the CV of the clinician who performed the May 2015 VA examination of the Veteran's knees, because the Board is granting service connection for right and left knee disabilities, this request is moot. Neither the Veteran nor his attorney have raised any other issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist with regard to the claims being decided below. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Service Connection Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In an April 2020 statement, the Veteran's attorney contends that "any condition which [the Veteran] suffered from in the service is presumed service connected pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 105." This is not an accurate interpretation of the law. That statute pertains to the question of whether an injury or disease during active duty service was or was not within the line of duty (as opposed to the result of willful misconduct), not whether a current disability is service connected. It does not create a presumption of service connection for every condition that was present during active duty service. The benefit of the doubt rule provides that a veteran will prevail in a case where the positive evidence is in a relative balance with the negative evidence. Therefore, the Veteran prevails in a claim when (1) the weight of the evidence supports the claim or (2) when the evidence is in equipoise. It is only when the weight of the evidence is against the claim that the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 1. Right Knee Disability 2. Left Knee Disability The Veteran contends that he has bilateral knee disabilities that had their onset during active duty service. The Veteran's service treatment records note a report of an eight-month history of soreness in both knees in August 1972. During a November 1972 treatment appointment, the Veteran reported a two-year history of intermittent right knee pain and what the treatment provider characterized as "episodes of reflex like giving away of the knee." The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for knee and lower leg conditions in May 2015. The clinician did not provide a diagnosis but found that both knees had abnormal ranges of motion due to pain. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that "pain in the absence of a presently-diagnosed condition can cause functional impairment." Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The examination was therefore consistent with a finding of current right and left knee disabilities despite the lack of a diagnosis. The clinician opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's knee disabilities were incurred in or caused by active duty service given the duration of ongoing symptoms during active duty service. The Veteran has submitted a December 2019 examination report by a private orthopedic surgeon, who also provided a positive nexus opinion but considered both of the Veteran's periods of active duty service. Because the only other medical opinion of record is also favorable to the Veteran's claim, it is not necessary for the Board to determine whether this opinion is adequate with regard to the 1970-1973 period of active duty service. The May 2015 VA medical opinion is favorable to the Veteran's claim with regard to both knees. The opinion includes a persuasive rationale and the record contains no medical opinion to the contrary. In light of the totality of the circumstances, and after resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the evidence of record supports a finding that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right and left knee disabilities are etiologically related to his active duty service. Accordingly, the Board finds that granting service connection for right and left knee disabilities is the decision that is the most consistent with VA's policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 3. Lipoma The Veteran contends that he had a lipoma that was etiologically related to his active duty service. VA received the Veteran's claim for service connection in September 2015. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Thus, the threshold question that must be addressed here (as with any claim seeking service connection) is whether the Veteran had the disability for which service connection is sought at any time during the period on appeal. In the absence of proof of a disability during that period, there is no valid claim of service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); see also Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997). Private treatment records note the January 2015 removal of a lipoma from the Veteran's upper back. During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran attributed this lipoma to a hard fall during his active duty service. However, the Veteran did not report any current residuals of the lipoma. The Veteran has submitted a December 2019 examination report by a private orthopedic surgeon who opined that the "service and medical records do not show or document [the Veteran's] lipoma to be service connected." The Veteran's lipoma was removed in January 2015, eight months prior to the beginning of the period on appeal. The record contains no medical evidence of a lipoma or any residuals thereof during the period on appeal. The Veteran is competent to report on matters observed or within his personal knowledge, such as pain. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). In this case, however, although the Veteran is competent to report lipoma symptoms, he has not done so, other than the implicit contention inherent in filing a claim for service connection. To the extent that this constitutes a report of current symptoms, the Veteran is not competent to provide an opinion as to whether these unspecified symptoms warrant any medical diagnosis. The Board must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular medical issue is within the competence of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). The Veteran in this case is not shown to possess any pertinent medical training or expertise that would make him competent to diagnose himself with any particular residuals of a lipoma. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, to the extent that the act of filing a claim constitutes an opinion that he has unspecified residuals of a lipoma, it is not a competent medical opinion and it cannot be assigned any probative weight. The record does not contain any competent, probative evidence that the Veteran has been diagnosed with or treated for a lipoma or any residuals thereof by any examiner or treatment provider during the period on appeal. Additionally, the Veteran has not reported having a lipoma or any residuals thereof during the period on appeal, other than the implied assertion inherent in filing a claim. As the evidence does not establish that the Veteran had a lipoma or any residuals thereof during the period on appeal, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007) (holding that current disability requirement is satisfied when a claimant "has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim,"); see also Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013) (holding that the Board must address recent pre-claim evidence in assessing whether a current disability exists, for purposes of service connection, at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency). Lastly, because there is no competent evidence of a current disability from a lipoma, or persistent or recurrent symptoms from a lipoma, a VA examination is not necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). 4. Sarcoidosis During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that he was first diagnosed with sarcoidosis in November 1977 and that he and the diagnosing clinician attributed this to cold exposure while serving in Germany in 1975. The Veteran has not advanced any other theory of service connection. His service personnel records indicate that his service in Germany began in late 1974. As stated above, due to the character of the Veteran's discharge for his period of active duty service from 1973 to 1976, VA may only consider his period of active duty service from 1970 to 1973 for the purposes of service connection. Because the Veteran's service in Germany did not begin until 1974, any cold exposure in Germany must have taken place during the period for which the Veteran's character of discharge is a bar to benefits. The Veteran has submitted a December 2019 medical opinion by a private orthopedic surgeon, which included a finding that it is as likely as not that the Veteran's sarcoidosis is service-connected. However, this opinion considered both of the Veteran's periods of active duty service. Although the opinion does not distinguish between those periods, because the Veteran's only contentions regarding service connection pertain to the second period, this opinion also likely pertains to that period. The only basis the Veteran has raised for service connection for sarcoidosis is exposure to cold during a period of active duty service for which his character of discharge is a bar to benefits. The Veteran has not contended that any other injury or illness in service could have caused his sarcoidosis and the Board has found no evidence of onset in service to establish direct service connection. Because the preponderance of the evidence is thus against finding that the Veteran's sarcoidosis is etiologically related to his active duty service that may be considered for VA benefits purposes, entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis is denied. 5. COPD During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that his COPD was secondary to his sarcoidosis. The Veteran has submitted a December 2019 medical opinion by a private orthopedic surgeon, which included a finding that it is as likely as not that the Veteran's COPD is service-connected because it was "superimposed on his sarcoidosis." The Veteran has not advanced any other theory of service connection. The only basis the Veteran has raised for service connection for COPD is that it was caused or aggravated by his sarcoidosis. Because service connection for sarcoidosis has been denied, secondary service connection is not warranted. The Veteran has not contended that any injury or illness in service could have caused his COPD and the Board has found no evidence of onset in service to establish direct service connection. Because the preponderance of the evidence is thus against finding that the Veteran's COPD is etiologically related to his active duty service, entitlement to service connection for COPD is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Many of the Veteran's claims stem from his report of a parachute accident. In a May 2014 statement, the Veteran specified that this incident occurred in August 1971. During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that he was "in traction" for approximately one week at "something like a dispensary on base" at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Veteran's service treatment records contain no mention of this incident or subsequent treatment; however, records of inpatient hospitalization are sometimes stored separately from service treatment records. For this reason, on remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should attempt to obtain these records, as well as attempting to obtain any other outstanding service treatment records. The Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran's statements regarding the parachute accident are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. As stated above, in a November 2019 letter, the Veteran's attorney requested copies of the curriculum vitae of the VA examiner. The Veteran is entitled to this information as part of VA's duty to assist. Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377 (2019). The Veteran's attorney did not specify any particular VA examiner but, because there has only been one VA examination with regard to any of the issues that remain on appeal after this decision, the Board will assume that the request applies to this examiner. 1. Service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide one that is adequate for purposes of the determination being made. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2014. The clinician's negative opinion with regard to direct service connection was based entirely on a lack of treatment records documenting "chronic, ongoing sequelae" of the Veteran's multiple reports of low back pain. The opinion did not address the Veteran's reports of progressively increasing pain since active duty service due to repetitive overuse. For this reason, a remand is warranted to obtain an additional examination. 2. Service connection for a neck disability is remanded. VA must provide an examination with regard to a claim for disability compensation when there is competent evidence of a disability that may be associated with an in-service disease, injury or event, but there is insufficient information to make a decision on the claim. McClendon, 20 Vet. App. 79. The Veteran has provided multiple accounts of a neck injury as a result of a parachute accident during active duty service. The threshold for determining whether the evidence "indicates" that there "may" be a nexus between a current disability and an in-service event, injury, or disease is a low one. Id., at 83. This evidence meets that threshold, and an examination is necessary. As stated above, the Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran's statements regarding the parachute accident are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. 3. Service connection for a right hand disability is remanded. 4. Service connection for a left hand disability is remanded. During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that he dislocated his fingers during the parachute accident referenced above. The Veteran has submitted an October 2015 statement from someone who reported that the Veteran wears braces on both hands. Because this evidence meets the low threshold for determining whether the evidence indicates that there may be a nexus to service, an examination is necessary. As stated above, the Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran's statements regarding the parachute accident are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. 5. Service connection for head trauma is remanded. During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that he injured his head during the parachute accident referenced above. Because this evidence meets the low threshold for determining whether the evidence indicates that there may be a nexus to service, an examination is necessary. As stated above, the Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran's statements regarding the parachute accident are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. 6. Service connection for headaches is remanded. During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that his headaches had their onset during the parachute accident referenced above. Because this evidence meets the low threshold for determining whether the evidence indicates that there may be a nexus to service, an examination is necessary. As stated above, the Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran's statements regarding the parachute accident are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. 7. Service connection for a psychiatric disability is remanded. During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran attributed his psychiatric symptoms to the parachute accident referenced above. Because this evidence meets the low threshold for determining whether the evidence indicates that there may be a nexus to service, an examination is necessary. As stated above, the Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran's statements regarding the parachute accident are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding service treatment records, specifically including any records of the Veteran's inpatient treatment at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in August 1971. The AOJ is advised that hospitalization records may be stored separately from service treatment records (STRs). Make as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records and only end efforts to do so if the records sought do not exist or further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. All negative responses must be documented. If no records are available, the claims folder must indicate this fact and the Veteran should be notified; this notice should advise the Veteran to submit any copies of these records he might have in his possession. 2. Send copies of the CV of the clinician who performed the August 2014 VA back examination to the Veteran and his attorney. If this is not possible or the attempts to obtain the CV are unsuccessful, the AOJ must document this. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician for his low back disability. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review. The clinician must provide an opinion as to the whether it is as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current low back disability had its origin in service or is related to the Veteran's active service. The clinician is advised that, for the purposes of this opinion, only the period of service from July 1970 to July 1973 may be considered as active duty service. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinician's attention to the following: a. October 1971 and November 1971 service treatment records noting a possible back injury. b. An April 1972 service treatment record noting a "back complaint" after a motor vehicle accident. c. The Veteran's September 2010 statement regarding the onset and continuity of his low back symptoms. d. The Veteran's statements during the August 2014 VA examination regarding the onset and continuity of his low back symptoms. e. The Veteran's September 2014 statement regarding the onset and continuity of his low back symptoms. f. The Veteran's testimony during the December 2019 hearing regarding the onset and continuity of his low back symptoms. g. The December 2019 private examination report. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. Note that the fact that a disability is not mentioned or diagnosed in treatment records cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician should so state and provide reasoning as to why this is so. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician for his neck disability. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review. The clinician must provide an opinion as to the whether it is as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current neck disability had its origin in service or is related to the Veteran's active service. The clinician is advised that, for the purposes of this opinion, only the period of service from July 1970 to July 1973 may be considered as active duty service. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinician's attention to the following: a. The Veteran's report during a September 2010 VA treatment appointment of a five month history of neck pain and left arm numbness. b. The Veteran's September 2010 statement regarding the onset and continuity of his spine symptoms. c. The Veteran's May 2014 statements regarding the onset and continuity of his neck symptoms as a result of a parachute accident. d. The Veteran's September 2014 statement regarding the onset and continuity of his neck symptoms. e. The Veteran's testimony during the December 2019 hearing regarding the onset and continuity of his neck symptoms. f. The December 2019 private examination report. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. Note that the fact that a disability is not mentioned or diagnosed in treatment records cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician should so state and provide reasoning as to why this is so. 5. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician for his right and left hand disabilities. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review. The clinician must provide an opinion as to the whether it is as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current right or left hand disability had its origin in service or is related to the Veteran's active service. The clinician is advised that, for the purposes of this opinion, only the period of service from July 1970 to July 1973 may be considered as active duty service. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinician's attention to the following: a. A September 2015 VA treatment record in which the Veteran reported a one month history of bilateral hand pain and difficulty with fine motor tasks. b. An October 2015 statement from someone reporting their observation of the Veteran wearing braces on both hands. c. The Veteran's testimony during the December 2019 hearing regarding the onset and continuity of his hand symptoms. d. The December 2019 private examination report. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. Note that the fact that a disability is not mentioned or diagnosed in treatment records cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician should so state and provide reasoning as to why this is so. 6. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician for his head trauma. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review. The clinician must provide an opinion as to the whether it is as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current head trauma had its origin in service or is related to the Veteran's active service. The clinician is advised that, for the purposes of this opinion, only the period of service from July 1970 to July 1973 may be considered as active duty service. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinician's attention to the following: a. The Veteran's testimony during the December 2019 hearing regarding in-service head trauma. b. The December 2019 private examination report. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. Note that the fact that a disability is not mentioned or diagnosed in treatment records cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician should so state and provide reasoning as to why this is so. 7. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician for his headaches. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review. The clinician must provide an opinion as to the whether it is as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current headaches had their origin in service or are related to the Veteran's active service. The clinician is advised that, for the purposes of this opinion, only the period of service from July 1970 to July 1973 may be considered as active duty service. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinician's attention to the following: a. The Veteran's testimony during the December 2019 hearing regarding the onset and continuity of his headaches. b. The December 2019 private examination report. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. Note that the fact that a disability is not mentioned or diagnosed in treatment records cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician should so state and provide reasoning as to why this is so. 8. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician for his psychiatric disability. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the clinician for review. The clinician must provide an opinion as to the whether it is as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current psychiatric disability had its origin in service or is related to the Veteran's active service. The clinician is advised that, for the purposes of this opinion, only the period of service from July 1970 to July 1973 may be considered as active duty service. Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the clinician's attention to the following: a. A March 2020 VA treatment record diagnosing major depressive disorder, severe, with psychotic features. b. The Veteran's May 2014 and September 2014 statements regarding an alleged stressor and his current symptoms. c. An October 2015 lay statement regarding the Veteran's symptoms. d. The Veteran's testimony during the December 2019 hearing regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. e. The December 2019 private examination report. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. Note that the fact that a disability is not mentioned or diagnosed in treatment records cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative finding. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician should so state and provide reasoning as to why this is so. 9. Ensure that the directives specified in this remand have been implemented. If they have not, appropriate corrective action must be undertaken before readjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). (Continued on the next page) 10. Then, readjudicate the claims. If any decision is unfavorable to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ryan Frank, 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.