Citation Nr: 23017010 Decision Date: 03/19/23 Archive Date: 03/19/23 DOCKET NO. 16-61 832 DATE: March 19, 2023 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for radiculopathy, right upper extremity, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1993 to December 2013. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (three awards), the Army Commendation Medal (four awards), and the Army Achievement Medal (thirteen awards) among other awards and decorations. In June 2021 and November 2022, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for additional development. The November 2022 Board remand requested that the AOJ make efforts to schedule an examination to evaluate the Veteran's cervical radiculopathy as the prior August 2022 VA examination that was completed at James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC), where the Veteran is incarcerated, evaluated the Veteran's cervical spine disability. The matter has now been returned to the Board for review. Following the Board's November 2022 remand, the AOJ cancelled the examination request noting that three emails were sent to JCCC and they went unanswered. The Court has held that VA must tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances in obtaining examination of an incarcerated claimant. Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995). It indicated that alternative means to obtain examination of an incarcerated claimant include: (1) attempting to arrange transportation of the claimant to a VA facility for examination; (2) contacting the correctional facility and having their personnel conduct an examination according to VA examination worksheets; or (3) sending a VA examiner to the correctional facility to conduct the examination. While the duty to furnish a medical examination to an incarcerated veteran is not absolute, when VA is unable to obtain an examination in such circumstances, the Board must outline the efforts that were made to provide that examination. The Board is cognizant that arranging a VA examination in a prison can be difficult. Though the AOJ indicated that an examination could not be scheduled due to JCCC's nonresponse to emails, there is no documentation of the emails sent and what email address was used. There is no evidence that any other contact with JCCC had been attempted. Even in the Board's own brief search concerning contact information for JCCC reveals a phone number for the facility. See https://oklahoma.gov/doc/contact.html. Further, the Veteran had already been provided a VA examination at JCCC, indicating the ability to conduct such an examination at the facility. Given the absence of documentation of the efforts made to contact JCCC and only the use of an email address, the Board is unable to find that sufficient efforts have been made to schedule and conduct the examination. Remand is required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Contact JCCC, where the Veteran is incarcerated, by email and telephone, and request that arrangements be made for him to undergo a VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected radiculopathy, right upper extremity. Options include having their personnel conduct an examination according to VA examination worksheets or sending a VA examiner to JCCC to conduct the examination. All efforts, to include documentation of any communications made to JCCC, to schedule such an examination should be documented in the claims file. Colleen M. Glaser-Allen Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Seay, 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.