Citation Nr: 1103045 Decision Date: 01/24/11 Archive Date: 02/01/11 DOCKET NO. 07-03 422 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder to include as secondary to service-connected gunshot wound to the left calf. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Berry, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1956 to January 1960. In addition, the Veteran had numerous 15-day periods of active duty for training between November 1975 and November 1981. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision dated in August 2005 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. In November 2009, the Board remanded this matter to the RO for a VA examination and opinion. The RO continued the denial of the claim (as reflected in the November 2010 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC)) and returned this matter to the Board for further appellate consideration. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Board observes that the November 2009 Board remand requested that the Veteran be provided with a VA examination and opinion addressing the question of whether the Veteran's back disorder is at least as likely as not caused by or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected gunshot wound to the left calf. The VA examiner provided the opinion that the Veteran's low back pain was not caused by or the result of the self-inflicted gunshot wound to the left calf. The examiner also concluded that "there is absolutely no evidence that the left calf self-inflicted gunshot wound nexus to the low back." He also noted that there is direct evidence that the onset of a low back disorder was the on the job injury in 1979, which is now overlapped with senescence and canal stenosis, an age-related phenomenon. It is clear that the examiner provided an opinion with rationale regarding the issue of whether the Veteran's service-connected gunshot wound of the left calf caused the low back disorder. However, the examiner did not specifically address whether the gunshot wound to the left calf aggravated the Veteran's low back disorder or provide a clear explanation for such opinion. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to develop the Veteran's claim in accordance with the Board's previous remand directive. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (as a matter of law, a remand by the Board confers on the Veteran the right to compliance with the remand orders). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should provide the claims folder to the VA examiner who conducted the VA examination in May 2010 for an opinion. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file and offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that the Veteran's service-connected gunshot wound to the left calf aggravated his back disorder. The examiner is requested to include a rationale for all conclusions and confirm that the claims file was available for review. 2. If the examiner who conducted the May 2010 VA examination is unavailable, then the Veteran should be provided with a VA examination. All indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary should be accomplished and all findings reported in detail. The claims file should be made available for review in connection with the examination. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file and offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a probability of 50 percent or more) that the Veteran's service- connected gunshot wound to the left calf aggravated his back disorder. The examiner should include a rationale for his or her conclusions and confirm that the claims file was available for review. 3. Upon completion of the foregoing, the RO should readjudicate the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder, based on a review of the entire evidentiary record. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO should provide the veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2010). _________________________________________________ John E. Ormond, Jr. Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2010).