Citation Nr: 18149312 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/09/18 DOCKET NO. 09-24 506 DATE: November 9, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for a lumbosacral strain disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from January 1986 to January 1989 and from January 1991 to July 1991. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2008 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran was afforded a Central Office Board hearing before the undersigned in March 2015. A transcript of the testimony offered at the hearing has been associated with the record. In November 2017, the Board issued a decision denying the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for a lumbosacral strain disability. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court or CAVC). In May 2018, the Court, based on a Joint Motion, vacated the Board’s denial, in part, and remanded the issue for further consideration. The Court held that the Board erred in failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases for its decision, as required by 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d). The appeal is remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for a lumbosacral strain disability. is remanded. In its May 2018 decision, the Court noted that the Board found no evidence in the record of abnormal neurological manifestations. The Court also noted, however, that the Board had also found that the Veteran experienced right leg sciatica, which caused him unsteadiness and right leg pain, weakness and numbness. The Board’s findings regarding the Veteran’s right leg sciatica were based on a June 2011 VA examination. The Court held that the Board’s statement of reasons and bases failed to reconcile its finding that the record contained no evidence of abnormal neurological manifestations with its acknowledgement that the record includes evidence of unsteadiness, pain, weakness, and numbness. Therefore, the Joint Motion directed the Board to reexamine the evidence of record, seek any other evidence the Board feels is necessary, and issue a timely, well-supported decision which is supported by an adequate statement of reasons and bases as to all material issues and relevant evidence presented on the record. Upon further review of the record and the Board’s earlier decision, the Board finds that there was no evidence of the Veteran experiencing right leg sciatica during the VA examinations subsequent to the June 2011 examination, to include those held on March 2012 and May 2016. Also, the Veteran did not report experiencing right leg sciatica during the September 2014 Board hearing. Due to the inconsistency in the record regarding the Veteran’s neurological manifestations, it is necessary to obtain a new VA examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s lower back disability, including specifically whether or not he has right leg sciatica. In addition, a medical opinion is required to reconcile the finding of right leg sciatica during a June 2011 VA examination with the fact that there was no finding of sciatica or radiculopathy during subsequent medical examinations. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain ongoing VA treatment records dated from March 2017 to present, and associate them with the claims file. 2. After compeltion of such development, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. The examination should be performed in accordance with the DBQ for the back (thoracolumbar spine) to ascertain the current manifestations and severity thereof associated with the Veteran’s service-connected lumbosacral strain, to include both orthopedic and neurological symptomatology. In so doing, the examiner should specifically determine whether those manifestations include sciatica and/or radiculopathy in the Veteran’s right leg. The DBQs should be filled out completely as relevant. All findings, conclusions, and opinions must be supported by a clear rationale. The electronic claims file, to include the Veteran’s service treatment records, lay statements and testimonies, and treatment records, must be reviewed by the examiner, and a note that it was reviewed should be included in the report. After reviewing the claims file and examining the Veteran, the examiner should provide a medical opinion reonciling the finding of right leg sciatica during the June 2011 VA examination with the absence of such a finding in subsequent VA examinations. The examiner should also explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached. If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 390 (2010). 3. Then, after conducting any other development deemed necessary, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and allow an appropriate period of time for response. Thereafter, the claims folder should be returned to the Board. Michael Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. White, Associate Counsel