Citation Nr: 18140982 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 14-30 725 DATE: October 9, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1976 to January 1977. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. In his July 2014 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge via video-conference. The hearing was scheduled for November 2017, but the Veteran did not attend. He has not offered good cause for his failure to appear at the hearing or request that such be rescheduled. Therefore, the Board considers his request for a hearing to be withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.702(d); 20.704(d) (2016). The Board notes that, in the May 2013 rating decision on appeal, the RO characterized the issue on appeal as a petition to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for a neck condition and service connection for a low back condition. Evidence received since the last prior denial of the claim, a June 2009 rating decision by the RO, includes the Veteran’s military personnel records. These records were not of record at the time of the June 2009 rating decision. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) provide that if, after VA issues a decision on a claim, VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim. Id. Therefore, the Board considers the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a neck condition and entitlement to service connection for a low back condition as an original claim rather than as a petition to reopen a previously denied claim. Entitlement to Service Connection for a Neck Disability and Entitlement to Service Connection for a Low Back Disability The Veteran contends that he has a neck disability and low back disability that are directly related to his active service. Specifically, the Veteran stated that his neck and low back disabilities are due to the 15 to 20 jumps he made as an airborne soldier. See, e.g., Notice of Disagreement, received November 2013. The Veteran was provided a VA examination as to his neck and low back disabilities in June 2014. VA has a duty to ensure that any medical examination or opinion it provides is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). A medical opinion is adequate where it is based upon consideration of the full medical history and describes a disability in sufficient detail so that the Board’s evaluation will be fully informed. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123 (2007). Here the Board finds that the June 2014 VA examination is inadequate for decision-making purposes since the VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s competent statements that he made 15 to 20 parachute jumps. Upon physical examination, the VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and herniated disc of the cervical spine. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s low back disability and neck disability were less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. As rationale, the VA examiner stated that there is no evidence or history of significant injury to the neck or back in service. The VA examiner further stated that Veteran did manual labor in a steel mill for 20 years when his back and neck problems started. However, the VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s contention that his current neck and low back disabilities are due to parachute jumps. As the examination is not adequate for decision-making purposes, the Veteran must be provided a VA addendum opinion to address whether the Veteran’s current neck and low back disabilities are related to an in-service event, injury, or disease, specifically to include parachute jumps. The VA examiner must address the December 1976 notation in the Veteran’s service treatment records demonstrating that he was airborne qualified. Additionally, the Board notes that the record for review may be incomplete. The most recent VA treatment records are from October 2013. VA treatment records, even if not in the claims file, are considered part of the record on appeal because they are within VA’s constructive possession. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). On remand, updated VA treatment records must be obtained and associated with the record. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding treatment records relevant to the matters being remanded, to include from October 2013. 2. After the above development, forward the record and a copy of this remand to the examiner who conducted the June 2014 VA examination, or if the examiner is unavailable, another suitably qualified examiner, for completion of an addendum opinion. If the examiner determines that another in-person examination of the Veteran is required to provide the below-requested information, then such an examination should be scheduled. Following review of the record, the examiner should express an opinion as to: (a.) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s low back disability had its onset during his service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service, to include making parachute jumps. (b.) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s neck disability had its onset during his service or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service, to include making parachute jumps. M. Donohue Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. G. LeMoine, Associate Counsel