Citation Nr: 18144170
Decision Date: 10/25/18	Archive Date: 10/23/18

DOCKET NO. 14-38 263
DATE:	October 25, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active service from July 1951 to May 1954. In December 2017, the Board remanded this appeal for further development. 
Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded.
The Board’s December 2017 remand instructed the RO to obtain a medical opinion as to whether the Veteran’s current back condition was related to his documented in-service 1952 back injury. The examiner was instructed to consider the positive nexus opinion of record by private physician A.S. 
A February 2018 VA addendum opinion stated that the examiner had reviewed the Veteran’s service medical records which reflected the 1952 service injury to his back. The examiner stated that the back injury occurred sixty years previously, that he saw “no mention of intervening events that are sure to have happened somewhere along the time line and nothing of that nature is mentioned,” and that he believed that the positive nexus opinion of record “was more of an opinion and not something that was born by any specific evidential finding.” The examiner gave no further rationale or support for his opinion. The Board finds that the February 2018 VA medical opinion is inadequate because it does not fully address the matter of service connection insofar as it does not answer whether the Veteran’s 1952 back injury is related to his current back condition with adequate rationale. Therefore, remand for a new medical opinion is necessary.   
The RO has not complied with the instructions from the December 2017 remand. The Board is obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary, and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. Accordingly, remand is required to obtain an adequate medical opinion that complies with the Board remand directives.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. With any necessary identification of sources by the Veteran, obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. All requests and responses for the records must be documented.
Then, arrange for the Veteran’s file to be reviewed by someone other than the individual who provided the February 2018 VA addendum opinion. The examiner should provide an addendum opinion to determine whether it is as least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s current back condition is related to his documented in-service 1952 back injury. If the examiner finds that the in-service 1952 back injury is not related to the Veteran’s current back condition, the examiner is asked to reconcile his opinion with the positive nexus opinion provided by private physician A.S. 
In this regard, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his injuries and symptoms, and his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinion. The examiner is to provide rationale for all opinions given.

 
THERESA M. CATINO
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	N. Peden, Associate Counsel