Citation Nr: 18144208
Decision Date: 10/24/18	Archive Date: 10/23/18

DOCKET NO. 08-10 731
DATE:	October 24, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.
Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from October 1981 to June 1983.
This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is from April 2007 and June 2012 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
In March 2010, the Veteran testified during a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned.  A transcript of this hearing is of record.
In October 2010, the Board reopened the claim of service connection for a cervical spine disorder, and remanded the claim for further development.  The matter was again remanded in October 2013 and February 2017.
1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.
The matter must be remanded since the September 2017 VA opinion and July 2018 addendum were incomplete.  Consequently, substantial compliance with the prior remand was not achieved.  
2.  Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded.
A June 2012 rating decision denied service connection for a left knee disorder, including as secondary to the service-connected right knee disability.  The RO received a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) in July 2012, but a statement of the case (SOC) was never issued.  In February 2017, the Board remanded this matter so that a SOC could be issued.  See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999).  Unfortunately, this was not accomplished.  Instead, the RO issued a rating decision/administrative decision/formal finding/statement of the case/supplemental statement of the case that merely listed the issue and stated that the prior determinations of April 2007 and June 2012 were confirmed.  It did not contain the information that is required to be included in an SOC as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (2018).  Consequently, it cannot be accepted as an SOC.
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Make the claims file available to the VA physician who provided the September 2017 and July 2018 opinions.  The physician must consider the contents of the April 2012 letter from Dr. E.M.M. and since this opinion differs from his own, he should comment on Dr. E.M.M.’s opinion and rationale.  In particular, discuss the other physician’s rationale and how it conforms or differs from the evidence.
2. Furnish the Veteran with an SOC on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, including as secondary to the service-connected right knee disability.  The SOC must address all pertinent 
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
 
evidence, laws and regulations, and conform with the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 19.29.
 
BARBARA B. COPELAND
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	D. Bredehorst