Citation Nr: 1326865 Decision Date: 08/22/13 Archive Date: 08/29/13 DOCKET NO. 11-15 568 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Connolly, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to March 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. 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 Veteran contends that his back was injured while he was in service and was involved in a motorcycle accident. Medical records from Summers County Hospital dated in June 1970 reflect treatment provided to the Veteran; however, the back was not mentioned. Nevertheless, the Veteran is competent to state that his back was painful after the accident. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). However, subsequent records dated in 2006 reflect that the Veteran was involved in another accident, after service, when a four-wheeler tipped on top of him. He complained of back pain after this incident. VA records dated in November 2009 show that the Veteran underwent a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computerized tomography(CT). The findings from these studies and physical examination showed that the Veteran had degenerative changes throughout his spine as well as degenerative disc disease. The Veteran and his representative have requested that he be afforded a VA spine examination. Pursuant to VA's duty to assist, VA will provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion based upon a review of the evidence of record if VA determines it is necessary to decide the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). A medical examination or medical opinion may be deemed necessary where the record contains competent medical evidence of a current diagnosed disability, establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, and indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the established event, injury or disease in service. See Id. The record before VA need only (1) contain evidence that the Veteran has persistent or recurrent symptoms of current disability and (2) indicate that those symptoms may be associated with the Veteran's active military service. Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 512 (2004). In McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) noted that the third prong of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(I), requires that the evidence of record "indicate" that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with service, establishes a low threshold. See also Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410, at 418 (2006). In light of the foregoing and recognizing the medically complex nature of this case, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA spine examination. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA spine examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current cervical, thoracic, and lumbar disability. The contact letter which informs the Veteran of the scheduled examination should be made a part of the record. Any indicated tests, including X-rays if indicated, should be accomplished. The examiner should review the record prior to examination. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is more likely than not, less likely than not, or at least as likely as not, that any current cervical, thoracic, and lumbar disability had its clinical onset during service, whether arthritis was present within one year of discharge from service, or if any current disability is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, including the inservice motorcycle accident. The VA examiner should address the Veteran's lay statements that his back disability began with the motorcycle accident. The VA examiner should also address the post-service June 2006 four-wheeler accident with regard to the etiology of any current disability. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed and conclusions reached. 2. The AMC should review the medical opinion obtained above to ensure that the remand directives have been accomplished. If all questions posed are not answered or sufficiently answered, AMC should return the case to the examiner for completion of the inquiry. 3. The AMC should then readjudicate the claim on appeal in light of all of the evidence of record. If the issue remains denied, the Veteran should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case as to the issue on appeal, and afforded a reasonable period of time within which to respond thereto. 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ K. PARAKKAL 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).