Citation Nr: 21041791 Decision Date: 07/10/21 Archive Date: 07/10/21 DOCKET NO. 16-62 339 DATE: July 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right and left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from June 1979 to June 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The matter was remanded in a December 2018 Board decision for additional development and has now returned for further appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for right and left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Pursuant to the December 2018 Board remand, the Veteran received a VA examination in October 2019 regarding the nature and etiology of her claimed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The examiner was instructed to specifically address the Veteran's contentions regarding the nature of her employment. However, in the October 2019 opinion, the examiner failed to address the Veteran's lay statements regarding the nature of her employment both during and after active duty service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the examination is inadequate for determining entitlement to service connection and that remand is warranted to obtain a new VA examination. The Board observes that pursuant to the December 2018 Board remand, the RO sent the Veteran correspondence in October 2019 requesting the completion of releases of information to assist in the determination of her claim. Although the Veteran did not respond to the initial correspondence, the Board requests that upon remand the RO make another attempt to obtain records related to the Veteran's asserted workman's compensation claims regarding her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide a release for relevant records pertaining to the workman's compensation matter associated with the purging of files with Kelly Services, and to identify, and provide appropriate releases for, any other facilities or care providers who may possess new or additional evidence pertinent to the issue on appeal. If she provides the necessary release(s), assist her in obtaining the records identified, following the procedures set forth in 38C.F.R.§3.159. Any new or additional (i.e., non-duplicative) evidence received should be associated with the record. If any of the records sought are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect that fact and the Veteran and her representative should be notified. 2. Then, afford the Veteran a VA examination with an examiner of appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies should be performed. Following the examination and a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner must state an opinion with respect to whether the Veteran's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) was incurred in, caused by, or is otherwise etiologically related to military service. In formulating the opinion, the examiner must specifically address the Veteran's lay statements pertaining to both in-service and post-service employment duties and her asserted theory of entitlement regarding etiology. The rationale for all opinions expressed should also be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Gorum, 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.