Entitlement to service connection for a left hand disorder is remanded.

Citation Nr: 26001435 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 20-24 444 DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left hand disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hand disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for fatigue is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a disorder manifested by chest pain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 2011 to September 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a August 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2022, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. In a February 2024 decision, the Board granted service connection for asthma and remanded the remaining claims for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for a left hand disorder, a right hand disorder, a left knee disorder, a right knee disorder, a left ankle disorder, a left shoulder disorder, fatigue, and a disorder manifested by chest pain are remanded. The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a left hand disorder, a right hand disorder, a left knee disorder, a right knee disorder, a left ankle disorder, a left shoulder disorder, fatigue, and a disorder manifested by chest pain. As noted above, in February 2024, the Board remanded the claims for additional development, including obtaining VA examinations and opinions. Pursuant to the Board's remand, in July 2024, the Veteran was scheduled for VA examinations to occur in September 2024. However, in September 2024, the examinations were canceled with the reason listed as Veteran unavailable. The Board acknowledges that, under applicable law, when a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be determined based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). In this case, however, the claims file does not contain correspondence documenting that the Veteran was informed of the scheduled examinations. Notably, the October 2024 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) stated that the VA examinations were unable to be scheduled. Additionally, the claims file reflects that the Board's February 2024 decision was returned to VA as undeliverable. Although the claims file contains a July 2024 correspondence regarding changing direct deposit information addressed to a different address than the Board's February 2024 decision was addressed to, the claims file does not indicate that the Board's February 2024 decision was later sent to the address listed on the July 2024 correspondence. Accordingly, affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board is unable to presume that the Veteran was properly notified of the Board's February 2024 remand and thus of the need for the subsequently scheduled examinations so as to permit the application of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). See Kyhn v. Shinseki, 716 F.3d 572 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As such, the Board finds that another remand is warranted to afford the Veteran an additional opportunity to undergo VA examinations in connection with his claims. The Board reminds the Veteran that VA's duty to assist is a two-way street. The Board emphasizes that it is the Veteran's responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of the case. The consequences of failing to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. If the Veteran wishes help, he must actively assist VA by providing the information requested by VA to support his claim. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for VA examinations with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's left/right hand, left/right knee, left shoulder, left ankle, fatigue, and chest pain disorders. The examiner must review the claims file. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran's condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a "disability" for the purpose of providing the requested opinions below. The examiner is also reminded that pain that causes functional impairment of earning capacity may constitute a disability even if there is no formal diagnosis. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: a) Does the Veteran have a current left hand disability that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? b) Does the Veteran have a current right hand disability that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? c) Does the Veteran have a current left knee disability that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? In rendering the above opinion, the examiner should consider and discuss the Veteran's November 2012 VA examination noting his reports of left knee problems. d) Does the Veteran have a current right knee disability that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? e) Does the Veteran have a current left shoulder disability that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? In rendering the above opinion, the examiner should consider and discuss the Veteran's November 2012 VA examination noting his reports of left shoulder problems. f) Does the Veteran have a current left ankle disability that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? g) Does the Veteran have a current disorder manifested by fatigue that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? The examiner is also asked to clarify if the Veteran's fatigue is a symptom associated with ankylosing spondylitis or is a separate and distinct diagnosis. h) Does the Veteran have a current disorder manifested by chest pain that had its onset in or was otherwise related to his active duty service, including being caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ankylosing spondylitis? The examiner is also asked to clarify if the Veteran's chest pain is a symptom associated with his service-connected asthma or is a separate and distinct diagnosis. Provide a rationale to support the opinions. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the Veteran's reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. 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 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? A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Coburn 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.