Citation Nr: 18154572 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 10-07 247 DATE: November 30, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1971 to April 1974, and from January 1981 to January 1983. In November 2017, the Board issued a decision that denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a right shoulder strain on both a direct and secondary basis. Concerning entitlement on a direct basis, the Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Subsequently, the parties to the action submitted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand which was adopted by the Court in an Order issued in May 2018. In the Joint Motion for Partial Remand, the parties agreed that the Board’s decision with respect to entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder strain on a secondary basis should not be disturbed. In the May 2018 Joint Motion for Partial Remand, the parties agreed that in denying the Veteran’s claim in November 2017, the Board relied on an inadequate August 2017 medical opinion. In particular, the parties agreed that the August 2017 VA examination failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned medical explanation for its conclusion that direct service connection was not warranted. The parties specifically noted that the only reasoning provided by the examiner was that “there was no medical records showing diagnosis, treatment for the right shoulder strain condition during active duty,” and that such reasoning, standing alone, was an insufficient basis for the denial of direct service connection. The Joint Motion for Partial Remand, thus, directed the Board to obtain a medical opinion with instructions indicating that the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence alone is insufficient rationale for negative nexus opinion. Thus, because the medical evidence of record is insufficient to resolve the Veteran’s claim, a new examination is necessary that adequately addresses all pertinent evidence, including his lay statements concerning the onset and continuity of any right shoulder symptoms. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (explaining that once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one or, at a minimum, notify the claimant why one will not or cannot be provided). On remand, the AOJ should associate with the record any outstanding VA treatment records that are not currently associated with the claims file. Records dated through June 13, 2017, are currently of record. Additionally, the Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding pertinent records. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate any VA treatment records dated after June 13, 2017, with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. Give the Veteran the opportunity to identify any outstanding pertinent evidence that has not already been associated with the claims file. The agency of original jurisdiction should then attempt to obtain those records if the Veteran provides the appropriate authorization. 3. The Veteran should then be afforded a VA examination to determine whether his currently-diagnosed right shoulder disorder had its onset during, or is otherwise related to his military service. The entire claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner, and the examination report should include discussion of the Veteran’s pertinent health history and assertions. Any indicated evaluations, studies, and tests should be conducted. Following a review of the entire record, to include the lay statements from the Veteran concerning the onset and continuity of symptomatology, the examiner should address the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right shoulder disorder had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his active duty service? In offering any opinion, the examiner must consider the full record, to include the lay statements regarding in-service and continuity of symptomatology. A clearly-stated rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. Lack of contemporaneous medical evidence documenting in-service shoulder problems alone is an insufficient rationale for opining that a condition is less likely than not incurred in or caused by a claimed in-service injury. 4. Thereafter, and after any further development deemed necessary, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the appropriate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Springer, Associate Counsel