Citation Nr: 18145513
Decision Date: 10/29/18	Archive Date: 10/29/18

DOCKET NO. 11-27 120
DATE:	October 29, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from July 1973 to May 1974.
The Veteran testified at a hearing before the Board in September 2013; however, a transcript of that proceeding could not be produced due to technical difficulties.  The Veteran was notified in January 2014 and was offered the opportunity for another hearing.  The Veteran subsequently testified at a second hearing in June 2014.  A transcript of that hearing is of record; however, the Veterans Law Judge who conducted that hearing is no longer employed by the Board.  In February 2017, the Veteran was informed that the judge was no longer available to decide his case and was offered the opportunity to appear at another hearing before a different Veterans Law Judge.  
Later that month, the Veteran and his representative responded that he did not want an additional hearing.  Thus, there is no outstanding request for a hearing before the Board.  
The Board remanded the case for further development in September 2014 and December 2015.  
In May 2017, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder, and the Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  In June 2018, the parties (VA Secretary and the Veteran) submitted a Joint Motion for Remand, and in June 2018 the Court issued an Order which vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for further development and readjudication in compliance with directives specified.  
Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded.
In the Joint Motion for Remand the parties noted the Board had considered a May 14, 2016 VA examination report that was not considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in the first instance and was not addressed in the most recent May 5, 2016 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), as required by 38 C.F.R. § 19.31, notwithstanding the fact that the Board did consider this evidence and the many delays in the full adjudication of this case, cited above.  In this regard, the Board apologies for the delays in the full adjudication of this case.   
Accordingly, the Joint Motion directed the Board to remand the case to the AOJ pursuant to this regulation.  As such, remand is required to provide the Veteran with a new SSOC that considers evidence and argument submitted after the most recent SSOC, specifically, the May 14, 2017 VA examination report, VA treatment records, and a medical opinion by Dr. J.H. received in May 2018. 
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Readjudicate the claim on appeal in light of all the evidence of record received since the May 5, 2016 SSOC, to specifically include the May 14, 2017 VA examination report, VA treatment records, and a medical opinion by Dr. J.H. received in May 2018.  If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, then a fully responsive SSC should be furnished to the Veteran and his representative and they should be afforded a reasonable opportunity for response.

 
JOHN J CROWLEY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Department of Veterans Affairs