Citation Nr: 22017303 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 17-41 180 DATE: March 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left leg varicose veins with swelling and discoloration is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to February 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, October 2020, and June 2021, the Board remanded the case for additional development and it now returns for appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for left leg varicose veins with swelling and discoloration. In the June 2021 remand, the Board found the April 2021 VA opinion was inadequate because it relied solely on the lack of medical records in service to find against the Veteran's claim. In this regard, the April 2021 VA examiner determined it is less likely than not that the Veteran's left leg varicose veins were incurred during service as all VA records reviewed and all records silent for any varicose veins until 2014. The examiner noted that service treatment records did not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis forth is condition. The examiner considered the Veteran's contentions focused solely on the Veteran's lack of a diagnosis or treatment in service. See, e.g., Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23(2007); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268(1998). Accordingly, the matter was remanded for an additional medical opinion. In December 2021, VA obtained an addendum opinion from a VA examiner. At such time, the examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's left leg varicose veins incurred in or was caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. As rationale, the examiner explained that there was no evidence of leg pain other than a single reference to knee pain in a March 1966 service treatment record, which resolved and was not present at separation. The examiner further explained that the Veteran served an additional two years with no evidence of an ongoing knee or leg condition. The Veteran was not diagnosed with varicose veins until in or around 2014. In this regard, the examiner stated that varicose veins were generally not symptomatic and would have been evident at the time of the separation examination. Therefore, the examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's varicose veins had their nexus in service, including the claimed darkening of the left ankle or left leg pain while in service. However, it does not appear that the VA examiner considered the Veteran's reports of in-service symptoms and that he continued to experience these symptoms following his discharge from service. See Dalton, supra. Therefore, remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion addressing such matters. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the claims file, to include a copy of this remand, to an appropriate VA examiner for opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed left leg varicose veins. The opinion should be rendered by an appropriate medical professional. The examiner should review the record and note such review in the examination report. The need for further in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner is asked to respond to the following questions: (A) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left leg varicose veins was incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran's service? In rendering an opinion, the examiner must specifically comment on the Veteran's contention that he began experiencing left leg pain and a darkening of the left ankle skin during combat field training, and he has continued to experience these symptoms since his separation from service. The examiner is further advised that the sole basis of a negative opinion cannot be the fact that the Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any treatment or diagnosis of such disabilities. TIFFANY HANSON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Brennae L. Brooks, 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.