Citation Nr: 1323128 Decision Date: 07/19/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 12-16 469A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of left hip injury. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of left leg injury. 3. Entitlement to service connection for low back disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Bryan Held, Agent ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Chapman, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1943 to January 1946. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2011 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A notice of disagreement was submitted in August 2011, a statement of the case was issued in June 2012 and a substantive appeal was received in June 2012. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The appeal is being REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND VA arranged for a medical examination in February 2013 in regard to the Veteran's claimed hip, leg and low back disabilities. When VA arranges for an examination of the Veteran, it must ensure that the examination is adequate for rating purposes. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The Board finds that the February 2013 examination opinions are inadequate because they were based on an inaccurate factual background. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (a physician's opinion based on an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value). The February 2013 examiner cited in his evidence review for each opinion provided that Martinsburg VA Medical Center treatment records from February 1996 indicate that the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident with resulting back pain and that subsequent lumbar X-rays revealed degenerative disc disease (DDD). The examiner also based, in part, his opinion regarding the Veteran's current low back disability on this fact. A review of the claims file indicates that the records referred to by the examiner may have belonged to the Veteran's son (other records belonged to another individual with the same surname) and were misplaced within the Veteran's claims file. The Board notes that the Veteran's representative pointed this out prior to the examination, but the misplaced records were not removed from the claims file and were thus, considered by the examiner. Accordingly, the Board finds that addendum opinions are required to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's current left hip, left leg, and low back disabilities. During the course of reviewing the claims file, the above-referenced documents which pertain to individuals other than the Veteran have been removed from the Veteran's claims file with appropriate action to be taken to associate them with the proper files. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. The claims file should be forwarded to the February 2013 VA examiner for review and an addendum. The examiner is to be informed that certain records (including records previously referenced by the examiner regarding a 1996 motor vehicle accident) pertained to an individual or individuals other than the Veteran and should not have been considered). The examiner should respond to the following: a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's left hip disability (degenerative joint disease status post total hip replacement) is related to service, to include as due to a mine explosion in service? b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's left leg disability (left knee strain) is related to service, to include as due to a mine explosion in service? c) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's low back disability (DDD and vertebral compressions) is related to service, to include as due to a mine explosion in service? A rationale for the opinions should be furnished. 2. If that examiner is no longer available, the Veteran should be scheduled for an appropriate examination by another examiner for the purpose of examining the Veteran, reviewing the claims folder, and offering a response, with rationale, to the questions posed above. 3. In the interest of avoiding further remand, the RO should review the addendums or opinions to ensure that they are based on an accurate rationale and are adequate to allow for informed review. If necessary, the addendums or opinions should be returned to the examiner for remedial action. 4. After completion of the above, the RO should readjudicate the claims. If they remain denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, afford the Veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond, and then return the case to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the 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 for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY 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) (2012).