Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disorder is remanded.

Citation Nr: 26001413 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 15-44 985 DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand and finger disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 to June 1992. This matter is on appeal from July 2014 and January 2018 decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The claims relating to bilateral elbow and bilateral hand and finger disorders were before the Board in November 2019 and November 2022, at which time they were remanded for further development. In a September 2023 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral elbow and bilateral hand and finger disorders. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court.) In a September 2024 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) of the parties and remanded the case to the Board for action consistent with the JMPR. The parties to the JMPR agreed that the Board erred when it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases as to whether January 2023 VA examinations and opinions substantially complied with the Board's November 2022 remand directives. Namely, in its November 2022 decision, the Board directed that, upon VA examination, the VA examiner should record and consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptomatology. The Board, again, remanded the claims in January 2025, June 2025, and October 2025 for additional development. Unfortunately, another remand is required. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral elbow disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand and finger disorder is remanded. In its October 2025 decision, the Board directed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to afford the Veteran a new VA examination in an attempt to obtain an adequate VA medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed bilateral elbow, hand, and finger disorders. The evidence of record includes internal VA examination documents that the Veteran was a "no show" for VA examinations scheduled in December 2025. See December 2025 Exam Scheduling Request Contention Cancellations. The Board notes that an examination scheduling letter dated November 23, 2025, was uploaded to the claims file following the December 2025 "no show" documentation. However, it is unclear if the scheduling letter was even sent to the Veteran prior to the December 2025 examination. Additionally, the Board notes that the November 23, 2025, notification letter informing the Veteran of an in-person examination was dated approximately seven days prior to the scheduled examination on December 2, 2025. It appears that the contract examiner gave no consideration to the length of time the United States Postal Service may require for delivery of the notice of examination. As such, the Board finds that remand is required, as the Veteran was not provided with adequate notice of the December 2, 2025, VA examinations. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examination(s) to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral elbow, and bilateral hand and finger disorders. If possible, the examination should be scheduled with a different clinician than the one who provided the August 2025 and September 2025 medical opinions. The claims folder must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should take a history from the Veteran as to the progression of his claimed disability. Upon review of the file, interview and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide responses to the following, as appropriate: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's bilateral elbow, and/or bilateral hand and finger disorders had onset in or are otherwise related to his active service? (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's bilateral elbow and/or bilateral hand and finger disorders are proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability? The examiner must clearly record the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and post-service continuity of symptomatology. Further, in proffering an opinion, the examiner must also clearly indicate that (s)he has considered the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptomatology. The VA examiner is reminded that a negative nexus opinion solely cannot be based on the lack of objective evidence in the Veteran's record. Rather, in providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of the in-service injury and symptoms as well as post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset or aggravation of the current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about the symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? Complete rationale should include an explanation of the evidence used in support of the conclusion, as well as an explanation as to why such evidence supports the conclusion. (continued on next page) ? 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. B. D. WATSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Williams, 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.