Citation Nr: 18145335 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 03-10 509 DATE: October 26, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from June 1973 to December 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2002 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in 2012. In August 2017, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and the Court granted a May 2018 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacated the August 2017 Board decision to the extent that it denied service connection for a left shoulder disability, and remanded the issue to the Board for re-adjudication. In the May 2018 JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for concluding that an August 2010 VA examination was adequate for evaluation purposes. The VA examiner in question provided contradictory and ambiguous findings regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s left shoulder disability. Specifically, the examiner indicated that X-ray results showed that “[t]here is a slight contour deformity of the glenoid, which could represent degenerative change and/or the sequela of old trauma” and that there are “[f]indings suggestive of old trauma involving the distal aspect of left clavicle,” but ultimately opined that “[a]lthough, current diagnostic with this report reveals mild degenerative changes of the left acromioclavicular (AC) joint, this is at least likely than not related to normal wear and tear of the joint due to aging.” The Board finds that the medical opinion is inadequate for decisional purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006); see also Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The examiner did not provide adequate rationale explaining why the Veteran’s current disability is related to the aging process rather than the “sequela of old trauma,” and whether such “old trauma” occurred during the Veteran’s military service. As such, remand for a clarifying medical opinion is necessary. The Veteran receives VA medical treatment for the condition noted on appeal; therefore, any outstanding, relevant treatment records should be procured. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from June 2018 to the Present. 2. Thereafter, forward the Veteran’s claims file, to include a copy of this Remand order, to any qualified examiner for an addendum VA medical opinion. If the examiner deems that additional examination of the Veteran is necessary to render any requested opinion, such examination should be scheduled. The examiner should review the claims file, including all service treatment records and the August 2010 VA examination report, and upon completion of such review, is asked to opine on the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed left shoulder disability had its onset during or is otherwise etiologically related to an event, injury, or disease occurring during the Veteran’s active duty military service? b) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed arthritis had its onset during or within one year of the Veteran’s active duty military service? The examiner is asked to reconcile his/her findings with the August 2010 VA examination report, particularly regarding the apparent ambiguity as noted in the text of this remand order. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions proffered. 3. Thereafter, re-adjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case.   After allowing an appropriate period for response, return the appeal to the Board for further review. U. R. POWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Reed, Associate Counsel