Citation Nr: 25005172 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 15-19 338 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity (major) prior to May 12, 2014, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity (minor) prior to May 12, 2014, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity prior to May 12, 2014, is remanded REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1968 to January 1971 to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In July 2015, the AOJ issued a rating decision that increased the Veteran's bilateral upper extremity neuropathy to 20 percent effective May 12, 2014. In April 2020, the case came before the Board. The Board remanded the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy claims in order to clarify the issues on appeal. In January 2021, the AOJ issued a rating decision that increased the Veteran's left lower extremity neuropathy to 40 percent disabling effective June 26, 2020. The AOJ also increased the Veteran's right lower extremity radiculopathy to 40 percent disabling effective from June 26, 2020. In February 2022, the Board denied disability ratings in excess of 10 percent each for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper (major), left upper (minor), and left lower extremity, prior to May 12, 2014. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In October 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) and vacated the February 2022 Board decision and remanded those issues to the Board for additional action consistent with the Joint Motion. It was noted that vacatur and remand are warranted because, in its statement of reasons or bases, the Board erred when it failed to adequately address the 2013 VA treatment records and whether the Veteran was entitled to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance. In March 2023, the Board remanded the Veteran's claims, consistent with the JMR. The Veteran's claims returned to the Board in May 2024, when they were remanded to ensure substantial compliance with the March 2023 remand directives. Further, the Board notes that in September 2023, the RO issued a rating decision that awarded aid and attendance. Thus, this issue is no longer before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity (major) prior to May 12, 2014, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity (minor) prior to May 12, 2014, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity prior to May 12, 2014, is remanded. In May 2024 the Board remanded the Veteran's claims for a retrospective opinion that would address the severity of the Veteran's neuropathy prior to May 12, 2014, as the March 2023 retrospective opinions did not substantially comply with the March 2023 remand directives. Subsequently, the AOJ obtained two medical examinations for the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy in June 2024 and November 2024. However, neither the June 2024 nor November 2024 VA examiner provided a retrospective medical opinion to address the nature of the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy prior to May 12, 2014. Both VA examiners instead provided examinations documenting the current severity of the Veteran's disabilities. As no retrospective opinions were provided, and the Veteran's 2013 statements regarding his experienced symptoms were not addressed, the Board finds that these medical opinions did not substantially comply with the Board's previous remand directives. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is required to obtain an adequate retrospective medical opinion, as to the severity of the Veteran's disabilities prior to May 12, 2014. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1.Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination and opinion with a new VA examiner to thoroughly address the severity of his bilateral upper extremity neuropathy and lower left extremity neuropathy prior to May 12, 2014. The examiner must interview the Veteran and ask him to identify what symptoms he experienced in addition to the frequency and the severity of these symptoms prior to May 12, 2014. *The examiner should specifically address the Veteran's competent and credible lay statements regarding his experienced symptoms. This includes 2013 statements regarding loss of balance and reported falls, specifically addressed in 2013 statements. The Board recognizes the difficulty of providing a retrospective opinion; however, the medical expert should utilize all procurable evidence in providing this opinion and supporting rationale, including the Veteran's competent and credible lay statements. If the examiner cannot render an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, a full and complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered should be provided. 2.After the above actions are completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal and if the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. W. Morgan, 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.