Citation Nr: 22015264 Decision Date: 03/16/22 Archive Date: 03/16/22 DOCKET NO. 17-49 401 DATE: March 16, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for right leg venous stasis/ insufficiency is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right foot condition with ankle problems is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1959 to April 1960, and from June 1963 to September 1963. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2015 rating decision. The issues on appeal were remanded for the issuance of a statement of the case under docket number 14-23 773 in May 2016 and remanded under the present docket number for additional development in June 2018. The June 2018 Board decision, in essence, noted that the December 2015 rating decision addressed matters ancillary to the Veteran's claim for entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disability (TDIU). The rating decision granted an increased 40 percent rating for right venous stasis/insufficiency effective September 2, 2015, decreased from 10 percent to 0 percent the rating for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy effective from September 2, 2015, and continued a 10 percent rating for a right foot condition with ankle problems. The June 2018 Board decision noted that an August 2017 rating decision restored the 10 percent rating for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy and recharacterized the issue on appeal as to the matter. The Board finds the issues remaining for appellate review are more appropriately addressed as provided. The Board also notes that an August 2019 decision under the present docket number granted an earlier effective date for the award of a TDIU effective from June 15, 2010. The issue of entitlement a TDIU has been fully resolved. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for right leg venous stasis/ insufficiency is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right foot condition with ankle problems is remanded. Although these issues were previously remanded, the Board finds that further development is required. Significantly, the June 2018 Board remand directives requested that the Veteran be examined by a vascular specialist, a neurologist, and a podiatrist. A March 2021 VA exam scheduling request clarification response noted the contract examination provider had indicated they did not have a podiatrist or vascular specialist and that they were instructed to proceed with the evaluations using a generalist if the provider was able to answer all that was requested in the remand order. No additional notification or explanation as to the matter was provided. The provided September 2021 VA contract examinations are shown to have been conducted by a general practitioner who found the Veteran had no right foot or ankle disorder and found that his right leg venous stasis/insufficiency and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy disabilities were resolved. It was noted the Veteran reported having no complaints as to these matters. No specific comments upon review of prior treatment records were provided. The Board finds the provided reports are inadequate due to insufficient rationale and inconsistency with prior VA examination reports in December 2016 indicating the disabilities at issue were chronic. The Board also notes that VA treatment records dated in December 2020 indicate the Veteran has advanced dementia. A remand confers on a veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Prior to any examination, up-to-date treatment records should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any additional private treatment records pertinent to his claims and to complete a VA Form 21-4142 if he desires VA assistance in obtaining evidence. If sufficient information is provided VA must make two requests for the authorized records, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Obtain all pertinent VA medical records not yet associated with the appellate record. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by a vascular specialist for an opinion as to the current nature and extent of his service-connected right leg venous stasis/insufficiency or peripheral vascular disease. An explanation must be provided if the examination cannot be conducted by a vascular specialist and information as to the examiner's medical training and expertise as to vascular disorders must be included in the record. The examiner must acknowledge that a review of the pertinent evidence of record, including the December 2016 VA examination report, was conducted. If the requested opinions cannot be provided, the examiner must clearly explain why or address why the requested opinions are not necessary. (Continued on the next page) 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by a neurologist for an opinion as to the current nature and extent of his service-connected left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. An explanation must be provided if the examination cannot be conducted by a neurologist and information as to the examiner's medical training and expertise as to neurological disorders must be included in the record. The examiner must acknowledge that a review of the pertinent evidence of record, including the December 2016 VA examination report, was conducted. If the requested opinions cannot be provided, the examiner must clearly explain why or address why the requested opinions are not necessary. 5. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by a podiatrist for an opinion as to the current nature and extent of his service-connected right foot condition with ankle problems. An explanation must be provided if the examination cannot be conducted by a podiatrist and information as to the examiner's medical training and expertise as to orthopedic disorders must be included in the record. The examiner must acknowledge that a review of the pertinent evidence of record, including the December 2016 VA examination report, was conducted. If the requested opinions cannot be provided, the examiner must clearly explain why or address why the requested opinions are not necessary. A.M. CLARK Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Douglas 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.