Citation Nr: 1329525 Decision Date: 09/16/13 Archive Date: 09/20/13 DOCKET NO. 10-06 085 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Turner, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served in the Coast Guard from July 1962 to July 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on an appeal from a May 2008 rating decision issued by the RO in San Diego, California. The rating decision was reaffirmed by an August 2008 rating decision by the RO in Cleveland, Ohio. The appeal is being remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required on his part. REMAND The Veteran claims that he developed disorders of the low back, knees and legs while serving in the Coast Guard. Specifically, he reports sustaining injuries in a 1964 accident in Alaska that caused him to develop back, knee and leg problems. He never sought treatment for his back, leg, or knee problems after service. The Veteran's service treatment records do not reflect any treatment as a result of this claimed accident. While the Veteran reported being treated at a private hospital at the time of the accident, that hospital did not have any records pertaining to the Veteran. The Veteran's service personnel records likewise do not confirm the accident. However, the Veteran has submitted lay statements from two witnesses to the accident. A retired Coast Guard officer reported that the Veteran was riding in the back of a flatbed truck when he slid off the truck in a sharp turn and a heater fell on him. The individual reported that the Veteran was injured and unconscious in the accident and was administered emergency care and sent to a civilian hospital since no military medical facilities were available. When the Veteran returned from the hospital, he was noted to be on crutches, complained of back and leg pain and had to be given limited duty. Another member of the Coast Guard reported remembering the accident when the Veteran fell off of a truck, although he did not know anything about his injuries or his medical condition. This individual reported that a hospital corpsman was called and the Veteran was removed from the scene. He also did not know whether the Veteran was placed on light duty when he returned from treatment. The lay statements are credible and sufficient to establish that the Veteran was involved in accident in the Coast Guard and sustained some type of injury in the accident. Although the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis as to a claimed back, leg or knee condition, he is competent to relate that he has pain or any other symptoms that are due to the previous injury . The evidence of an injury in service and current symptoms of a disability meets the low standard for affording a VA examination. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should have the Veteran scheduled for a VA examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of the claimed low back, leg and knee conditions. The claims folder should be available to the examiner for review in connection with his evaluation. All indicated testing should be performed. The examiner should elicit from the Veteran and record a complete medical history. After reviewing the entire record and examining the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (at least 50 percent likely) that he suffers from a low back, leg or knee disability due to the reported injuries sustained in the accident during service or due to another event or incident of his period of active service. A complete rationale should be provided in the report of examination. If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinion without resort to undue speculation, he or she should explain why this is the case. 2. After completing all indicated development, the RO should readjudicate the Veteran's claims in light of all the evidence of record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a fully responsive Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and afforded a reasonable opportunity for response. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. The Veteran 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). _________________________________________________ STEPHEN L.WILKINS 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) (2013).