Citation Nr: 18142149 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/12/18 DOCKET NO. 14-15 359 DATE: October 16, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served active duty from August 1984 to August 1987. This matter comes to the Board on appeal of a July 2012 rating decision. This case was previously before the Board in November 2015, where the issue on appeal was remanded for further development. In his April 2014 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing. A hearing was scheduled for May 2018, but the Veteran was unable to attend and was granted a postponement. The hearing was then rescheduled for August 2018, but the Veteran was deemed a “no show.” To date, the Veteran has not provided any good cause explanation for his absence or a request to reschedule the hearing; therefore, his hearing request is withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain is remanded Here, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2016, where the VA physician, Dr. S.W., indicated that the Veteran did not at that time nor at any time have a diagnosable back disorder. The Veteran did not report any functional loss or functional impairment but maintained that he suffered from chronic low back pain with intermittent episodes of muscle spasms in the lower back. Based on the examination, Dr. S.W. opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s “lumbosacral strain” is related to his military duty 30 years ago. Dr. S.W. reasoned that he was unable to find military records showing evidence of a chronic back condition related to the Veteran’s current complaints of back pain. The Board notes, however, that the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) include two entries, where the Veteran reported recurrent back pain during his report of medical history. The first entry was in November 1986 and the second entry was in June 1987. Conversely, in the January 1984 entrance examination, the Veteran did not report recurrent back pain during his report of medical history. Therefore, as Dr. S.W. failed to identify relevant evidence, his medical opinion is inadequate and a remand for an addendum opinion is necessary. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all relevant outstanding VA treatment records, and any private treatment records identified by the Veteran. Associate them with the claims file. All records and/or responses received should be associated with the claims file. 2. After all outstanding treatment records have been associated with the claims file, obtain a VA addendum medical opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s lumbosacral strain. If an opinion cannot be obtained without an examination, then a VA examination should be afforded to the Veteran. The record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The VA examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s lumbosacral strain had its onset during service or is otherwise causally related to any event or circumstance of the Veteran’s service. The examiner should cite to the pertinent medical and competent lay evidence of record and explain the rationale for all opinions given. If after consideration of all pertinent factors it remains that the opinion sought cannot be given without resort to speculation, it should be so stated and the provider must (to comply with governing legal guidelines) explain why the opinion sought cannot be offered without resort to speculation 3. After undertaking any additional development deemed necessary, the AOJ must readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. Umo, Associate Counsel