Citation Nr: 18154302 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/29/18 DOCKET NO. 13-22 374 DATE: November 29, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a generalized arthritis condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from October 1974 to April 1976, and in the United States Navy from October 1978 to May 1980. This claim comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. The Veteran timely appealed this decision in a May 2011 notice of disagreement. VA issued a July 2013 statement of the case, and the Veteran filed a timely VA Form 9 in August 2013. In October 2016, VA issued a supplemental statement of the case, and the RO certified the Veteran’s appeal to the Board, through a November 2016 VA Form 8. In August 2017, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s generalized arthritis condition, left shoulder arthritis, right shoulder arthritis, and back condition, and remanded the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus. In September 2017, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). An April 2018 Court order granted the parties’ April 2018 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). In April 2018, CAVC granted the parties’ JMPR to vacate and remand the August 2017 Board decision. The parties’ agreed that the Board erred by relying on inadequate examinations where the examiners did not provide an opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s service-connected frostbite residuals produced gait problems that impacted his back or shoulder, or whether his various arthritic conditions have been aggravated by his frostbite residuals or the resulting pain and arthralgia. Accordingly, a remand is warranted so that an adequate opinion can be obtained regarding secondary service connection, especially as it pertains to the theory of aggravation. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (noting that when VA takes action to furnish a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion it must ensure that the examination is adequate; see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448-49 (1995) (en banc) (indicating that service connection on a secondary basis is warranted when a current disability is either caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran’s generalized arthritis condition, back condition, and his left and right shoulder arthritis as secondary to his service-connected frostbite residuals. An examination of the Veteran is not required unless deemed necessary by the medical professional selected to offer the opinion. The claims file and a copy of this remand must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner. (a.) The examiner must specifically address the question of whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability or higher) the Veteran’s currently diagnosed generalized arthritis condition, left and right shoulder arthritis, and back condition were caused by the Veteran’s service-connected frostbite residuals, to include the resulting pain and arthralgia. (b.) The examiner must specifically address the question of whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability or higher) the Veteran’s currently diagnosed generalized arthritis condition, left and right shoulder arthritis, and back condition are aggravated (i.e., worsened beyond normal progression) by the Veteran’s service-connected frostbite residuals, to include the resulting pain and arthralgia. In so opining, the examiner is asked to consider and discuss the following: (c.) The Veteran’s contentions that his service-connected frostbite residuals produced gait problems that impacted his back or shoulder. 2. A fully articulated medical rationale for each opinion expressed must be set forth in the medical report. The examiner should discuss the particulars of this Veteran’s medical history and the relevant medical science as applicable to this case, which may reasonably explain the medical guidance in the study of this case. 3. After completing the above, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Ohlstein, Law Clerk