Citation Nr: 22014583 Decision Date: 03/14/22 Archive Date: 03/14/22 DOCKET NO. 15-09 662 DATE: March 14, 2022 REMAND Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include as due to service-connected disabilities of the lower extremities, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1984 to May 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 Rating Decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. A Board hearing was conducted at the RO in Denver, Colorado. A transcript of this hearing is contained within the electronic claims file. In a May 2021 Decision, the Board, among other things, denied this claim. The Veteran appealed that determination to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). He and the Office of the General Counsel for VA (collectively referred to as "the Parties") resolved that appeal by way of an October 4, 2021, Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). The Parties agreed that the Board erred by failing " . . . to address the theory that Appellant's left hip disability was caused or aggravated by the combined effects of his bilateral lower extremity disabilities, to include right foot plantar fasciitis, status post fracture; left foot plantar fasciitis, status post fracture; radiculopathy, right lower extremity; and radiculopathy, left lower extremity." This is because the Board's decision relied on an October 2020 VA medical opinion which focused on other factors, namely, "that [Appellant]'s left hip condition is not related to any altered gait due to his back and that his obesity is a large, contributing factor." By a November 8, 2021, Order, the CAVC adopted the Parties' JMPR and vacated the Board's May 2021 Decision with respect to this issue, remanding it back for appellate consideration. To afford the Veteran substantial compliance with the Parties' JMPR, remand is required so that the agency of original jurisdiction can secure an addendum medical opinion that adequately addresses the Veteran's theory of entitlement. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 260 (2020) (holding that a medical needs to discuss any theories of entitlement raised by the Veteran to be deemed adequate); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any ongoing VA treatment records. Should they exist, associate them with the claims file. 2. Obtain an addendum to the October 2020 medical opinion. The addendum shall answer the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a fifty percent probability or greater) that the combined effect of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities of his lower extremities (bilateral plantar fasciitis and bilateral radiculopathy) (i) proximately caused or (ii) aggravated beyond natural progression his left hip disability? Note: The examiner is reminded that the term "as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of medical possibility," but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner's expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. A detailed rationale supporting the examiner's opinions must be provided. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner should so state and provide reasoning as to why a conclusion would be so outside the norm that such an opinion is not possible. 3. Conduct any other development deemed necessary and then readjudicate the Veteran's claim. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter that the Board has remanded. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded for additional development or other appropriate action by the Board or United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must be handled in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Trevor T. Bernard, 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.