Citation Nr: 18148711 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-01 017 DATE: November 8, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder, to include as secondary to a service connected bilateral knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a left knee disorder currently evaluated at 10 percent disabling is remanded. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a right knee disorder currently evaluated at 10 percent disabling is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for lower back disorder, to include as secondary to a bilateral knee disorder is remanded. REASON FOR REMAND The Veteran had a period of active duty service from February 1984 to February 1988 and from February 1988 to February 2004. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder, to include as secondary to a bilateral knee disability is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his neck disorder is proximately caused by his service connected bilateral knee disorder. The Veteran also reported having symptoms in his neck shortly after release from service. In a June 2009 VA C&P cervical spine examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine along with postlaminectomy syndrome with cervical myelopathy, but noted no evidence of literature that a bilateral knee disorder causes spine impairment. Evidence of the claims file reveals that the Veteran’s last June 2009 C&P examiner did not address in detail the etiology of the Veteran’s neck disorder as well as explain in detail why the Veteran’s service connected bilateral knee disorder did not proximately cause his neck disorder. A lack of medical literature is not a sufficient or detailed diagnosis. 2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a left knee disability currently evaluated at 10 percent disabling is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a right knee disability currently evaluated at 10 percent disabling is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for lower back disorder, to include as secondary to a bilateral knee disability is remanded. These issues are remanded under the holding in Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement stemming from a June 2011 rating decision with regard to these issues. To date a statement of the case has yet to be issued. As such the Board must remand the claim for the issuance of a statement of the case. See Manlincon v. West 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the records to the prior examiner, or similarly qualified examiner for an addendum opinion and a new examination if needed. The examiner must be given access to all records contained in Virtual VA and VBMS, and a notation must be made that review of all records has been accomplished. After a thorough review of the medical history, the examiner is requested to prepare a detailed opinion which answers the following question: Taking into consideration the Veteran’s STR’s, lay statements, post service VA and private treatment records, and employment health examinations, is it as likely as not (that is a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s neck disorder was caused by his service connected bilateral knee disorder. The examiner must provide a detail rational as to his diagnosis. If the examiners cannot provide any of the requested opinions, they must affirm that all procurable and assembled data was fully considered and a detailed rationale must be provided for why an opinion cannot be rendered. 2. Send the Veteran and his representative a statement of the case that addresses the issues of entitlement to an increased rating for a right knee disability currently evaluated at 10 percent disabling; entitlement to an increased rating for a left knee disability currently evaluated at 10 percent disabling; and entitlement to service connection for a lower back disability, to include as secondary to a bilateral knee disability. To continue the appeal a timely substantive appeal would have to be filed. 3. The AOJ must ensure that the examiner’s reports comply with this remand and answers the questions presented in the request. The AOJ must also ensure that the examiner documents consideration of the electronic claims file, including any records contained in Virtual   VA and VBMS. If the report is insufficient, the AOJ must return it to the examiner for necessary corrective action as appropriate. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Elliot Harris, Associate Counsel