Citation Nr: 22017153
Decision Date: 03/24/22	Archive Date: 03/24/22

DOCKET NO. 16-04 350
DATE: March 24, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for gout is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 2005 to February 2009. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in June 2020 and September 2021. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for gout is remanded.

Unfortunately, remand is again required to secure an adequate medical opinion that complies with the Board's prior remand directives. The June 2020 and September 2021 remands directed VA to obtain a medical opinion that addressed the Veteran's contention that gout initially manifested in service but was misdiagnosed. VA obtained a new medical opinion in November 2021, but the examiner failed to address the contention identified by the prior remands. As a result, remand for an addendum is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance).

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of gout from a VA examiner. The entire claims file must be made available to, and be reviewed by, the examiner. If an examination is deemed necessary, it shall be provided.  An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided.  

(a.) The examiner must provide an opinion on whether gout had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active service.  

(b.) The examiner must discuss the Veteran's contentions in his March 2015 Notice of Disagreement that his gout was misdiagnosed in service, and that his intermittent joint pain in service indicated a diagnosis of gout at that time.

 

 

E. BLOWERS

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C. Smith, 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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.