Citation Nr: 18151609
Decision Date: 11/19/18	Archive Date: 11/19/18

DOCKET NO. 14-29 103
DATE:	November 19, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from March 1951 to November 1954.  The Veteran and his wife testified at a Decision Review Officer hearing in October 2015. 
A September 2017 Board decision (in pertinent part) denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disability.  The Veteran appealed this denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).  Pursuant to an April 2018 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the Court vacated the Board’s denial for the claim of entitlement to service connection of a back disability, and remanded the issue to the Board for compliance with the instructions provided in the JMPR.
In the JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board erred when it did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases as to whether the Veteran’s lay statements were credible and could demonstrate continuous symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).  
Here, the Veteran maintains that his back disability arose in service and has persisted on an ongoing basis since that time.  See December 2010 claim, June 2011 notice of disagreement, May 2013 statement from the Veteran, and October 2015 hearing testimony.  Where a veteran has provided lay testimony, an examiner cannot ignore that lay evidence and base his or her opinion only on the absence of corroborating medical records.  See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007).  The Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2015, and the examiner provided an opinion in April 2016 that there was no relationship between the Veteran’s one acute back issue in service and his present disability.  However, while the VA examiner addressed the Veteran’s general contentions, the examiner did not address the Veteran and his wife’s lay statements of continuity of symptoms since service.  
Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain a medical addendum opinion in this matter.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his back disability. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history.  Such reports, including those of continuity of symptomatology, must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion.  If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, she/he must provide an explanation for such rejection.
The examiner is asked to respond to the following inquiries: Is it at least as likely as not that any current back disability (1) began during active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service?
The examiner must specifically address the Veteran’s contentions (and those of his wife) of continued symptomatology following his service injury.
 
A. ISHIZAWAR
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	K.R.Fletcher, Counsel