Citation Nr: 18148629 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-43 585 DATE: November 7, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2009 to September 2013. The Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. See December 2016 Correspondence. 1. Back condition The Veteran contends that he hurt his back in service when he fell on a trailer in October 2011. See September 2016 VA Form 9. He reported that his back pain has continued ever since service. Id. A December 2015 VA primary care note indicated that the Veteran has reported chronic, daily low back pain with associated right leg pain. He was assessed with back pain/sciatica, likely lumbar disc disease following injury. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination and remand is warranted. 2. Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome The Veteran reported that he has carpal tunnel syndrome which developed as a result of his time in the service as motor transport mechanic. See September 2016 VA Form 9. He has reported carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms of constant hand pain and his hands locking up when trying to grasp objects. See December 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD). The Veteran’s personnel records indicate that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was automotive maintenance technician. See Form DD-214. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination and remand is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain outstanding relevant VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for VA examination(s) to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed back condition and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The examiner(s) is requested to review the claims file, to include this remand. Following review of the claims file, the examiner(s) should provide an opinion on the following: Back condition (a) The examiner should indicate whether the Veteran has a currently diagnosed back disability. (b) For any diagnosed back disability, the examiner should indicate whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the disability is caused by or related to service, to include an October 2011 fall in service. Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (a) The examiner should indicate whether the Veteran has diagnosed left hand and/or right hand carpal tunnel syndrome. (b) For any diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome, the examiner should indicate whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the disability is caused by or related to service, to include his duties as an automotive maintenance technician. A complete rationale for all opinions should be provided. If the examiner feels that a requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). The examiner should reconcile any opinion with all other clinical evidence of record, including relevant lay statements, service treatment records (STRs), and ongoing medical records. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s self-reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. 3. After completing the above action and any other necessary development, the claims must be readjudicated. If a claim remains denied, a Supplemental Statement of the Case must be provided to the Veteran and current representative. After the Veteran has had adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Schick, Associate Counsel