Citation Nr: 21040808 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 19-12 114 DATE: July 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from March 1967 to December 1970. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2019, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is remanded. Once VA has provided a VA examination, it is required to provide an adequate one, regardless of whether it was legally obligated to provide an examination in the first place. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). A VA examiner must consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the incurrence of a disorder, and his statements regarding the continuity of symptomatology. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40. A Veteran is competent to report symptoms that are capable of lay witness observation. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Board remanded this claim in October 2019 for an addendum opinion that addressed the Veteran's lay statements regarding his ankle pain in service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019. The examiner determined the Veteran's current right ankle condition is less likely than not related to service, to include his in-service injury. She explained that the Veteran did not have any residual right ankle conditions, and his 1971 x-ray showed a normal ankle joint. The examiner also noted the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service ankle injury and constant pain. However, she did not discuss this in her rationale. Additionally, the examiner noted that the Veteran had an in-service right ankle sprain with residual swelling and pain. However, she did not address whether his in-service ankle sprain with residual swelling and pain caused his current right ankle condition. The Veteran also stated in his March 2019 correspondence that he believes his right ankle condition is caused by his in-service injury and not by other risk factors, to include obesity, aging, and repetitive stress, because he does not have any issues with his other ankle. As such, a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran an addendum opinion that properly addresses his lay statements and in-service ankle sprain with residual swelling and pain. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records not currently associated with the claims file. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion for the Veteran's right ankle condition. The entire file should be made available to the examiner. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's right ankle condition had its clinical onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, to include the Veteran's right ankle sprain, swelling, and pain during service. The examiner must also consider and address the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service right ankle injury and continuous pain, and his March 2019 correspondence wherein he states his right ankle condition is due to his in-service injury because his left ankle does not have the same issues. The examiner is requested to provide a clear rationale and explain in detail the underlying reasoning for any opinions expressed. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. (continued on next page) TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Papacalos, 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.