Citation Nr: 22019062 Decision Date: 03/31/22 Archive Date: 03/31/22 DOCKET NO. 17-57 785 DATE: March 31, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left foot disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1983 to January 1989 and from November 2001 to September 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2014 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Board hearing was held in March 2020. A transcript is of record. In February 2020, the Board remanded the claim to the AOJ to obtain a new examination with opinion that addresses the Veteran's lay report of symptoms. Entitlement to service connection for left foot disability. The Veteran contends that his left foot disability is related to service. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in September 2020, which showed diagnoses of left foot hallux rigidus, bilateral plantar fasciitis and bilateral degenerative arthritis. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that his left foot disability was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or illness, specifically footwear/injury in service. The examiner stated that the only in-service medical records complaining of left foot pain are connected to a left big toe in-grown toenail that is not relevant to his functional loss and pain described during examination, which is related to plantar fasciitis and arthritis. Therefore, the examiner opined, it is less likely than not that the Veteran's left foot disability and functional loss are directly service related. The Board regrets the further delay but finds that a new opinion is needed to afford the Veteran full consideration of his claim. The September 2020 opinion fails to comply with the previous remand directive to address the Veteran's lay contentions that he experienced symptoms in service. The examiner's rationale relies solely on a lack of in-service medical records of a foot condition. Compliance with remand directives is not discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Here, the Board finds that the September 2020 VA medical opinion does not substantially comply with the Board's February 2020 remand directives, thereby precluding the Board from the ability to issue a final determination. As the opinion failed to address the Veteran's lay statements, the Board must remand the matter for an additional medical opinion so that the remand directives may be substantially completed. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an additional medical opinion from an appropriate clinician. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the clinician. After the record review, the reviewing clinician is asked to respond to the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left foot disability was caused by or aggravated by his active duty service? In rendering the opinion above, the examiner must address the Veteran's lay contentions that he experienced symptoms during service. The examiner reminded that lack of documentation or notation of complaints or treatment during service, by itself, is insufficient basis to find against a relationship. A complete rationale for the opinion should be set forth and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. 2. Then, readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an appropriate period within which to respond thereto. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Wilson, 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.