Citation Nr: 1800689 Decision Date: 01/05/18 Archive Date: 01/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-11 305 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a back condition. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Gandhi, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served honorably on active duty from January 1955 to February 1956 in the United States Army. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2014). The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the issue must be remanded. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay caused by this remand, but wishes to assure the Veteran that it is necessary for a full and fair adjudication of his claim. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination with respect to his current claim for service connection a back condition. VA's duty to assist includes providing a medical examination when it is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). Such development is necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, (2) establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease during the pertinent presumptive period, and (3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006). Here, the Veteran received diagnoses of lower extremity radiculopathy and osteoarthrosis in May 2010, has asserted that this condition began in service, and has provided lay evidence that the condition has continued since service; however, there is insufficient evidence of record to decide the claim. Consequently, remand for an examination and etiology opinion is warranted. See id.; Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Assist the Veteran in associating with the claims folder updated treatment records. 2. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's back condition. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: * Is it at least as likely as not (probability of 50 percent or more) that the current back condition had its onset in or is related to service? The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions, including, but not limited to the Veteran's lay statements of experiencing chronic lower back pain during his service due to the heavy lifting he performed during the course of his duties. The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. 3. After completing any additional notification or development deemed necessary, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity for response. 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 2014). _________________________________________________ A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), 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) (2017).