Citation Nr: 18145952 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 17-60 817 DATE: October 30, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from October 1977 to December 1997. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that reconsidered a November 2016 denial of service connection for a cervical strain. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. The Board regrets additional delay, but finds it cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for cervical spine disability without obtaining a new VA medical opinion. The Veteran was provided a VA cervical spine examination in May 2017. Degenerative arthritis was diagnosed. The examiner opined the neck disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. He reasoned that while the Veteran was treated for neck pain on one occasion in December 1986, multiple subsequent examinations and an August 1987 separation examination were silent for neck problems. However, a review of the Veteran’s service treatment records show that he complained of neck pain on multiple occasions from November 1986 to February 1987. In addition, in his March 2017 claim for service connection, the Veteran reported he experienced neck pain, which he attributed to the use of heavy night vision equipment as well as vibrations from the helicopters he operated, throughout service but did not regularly seek treatment because he didn’t want to risk losing his flight status. His wife corroborated his assertion in a June 2017 statement and reported he regularly complained of neck pain during service. The May 2017 examiner incorrectly noted the Veteran’s service treatment records show he only complained of neck pain on one occasion and did not address the Veteran’s reports of regularly experiencing neck pain in service due to the use of heavy night vision equipment. Accordingly, an addendum etiology opinion is required. In the June 2017 statement, the Veteran’s spouse reported he sought treatment for his neck pain from a chiropractor following service. On remand, the Veteran should be asked to furnish, or to furnish an authorization to enable VA to obtain, any additional private treatment records from providers who treated him for his claimed disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given an opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claim on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in his possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. After obtaining any outstanding records, return the claims file, to include a copy of this remand, to the May 2017 examiner for an addendum opinion. If the examiner who drafted the May 2017 opinion is unavailable, the opinion should be rendered by another appropriate medical professional. The need for another examination is left to the discretion of the medical professional offering the addendum opinion. The examiner is asked to furnish an opinion with respect to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or better probability) that the cervical spine disorder related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the neck problems noted from November 1986 to February 1987. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s contention that his current neck pain manifested in service when he regularly wore night vision goggles and experienced vibrations from the helicopters he piloted and that his neck pain has continued since. A complete rationale should be provided for this opinion. KRISTY L. ZADORA Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD William Skowronski, Associate Counsel