Citation Nr: 20005366 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 07-09 466 DATE: January 23, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran has active duty service from September 1977 to March 1983, from May 1985 to April 1988, and from February 1991 to July 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional office (RO). In December 2010, the Board remanded this matter for further development. The case has been returned to the Board. Unfortunately, the Board finds that another remand is needed. Pursuant to the Board’s prior remand, the Veteran’s claims folder was forward to a VA medical professional for an opinion as to the etiology of his cervical spine condition. The medical professional included a discussion of the evidence of record. While this medical professional provided the requested opinion, she did not provide rationale for her conclusion. Further, she did not address the Veteran’s competent assertions of neck problems since the in-service injury. Accordingly, another remand is necessary to provide the necessary information. The Board errs when it fails to ensure substantial compliance with a Board remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (Board remand confers a right on a claimant to compliance with the remand order); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 147 (1999) (clarifying that substantial compliance with Board remand is required). Where the Board fails to ensure substantial compliance, remand is appropriate. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to determine the nature and etiology of his cervical spine disability. The examiner should review the claims file in conjunction with the examination and should acknowledge such review in the examination report. All necessary testing should be completed. After review of the claims file, as well as an interview with, and examination of, the Veteran, the examiner should render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability) that any diagnosed cervical spine disability onset during the Veteran’s active duty or is otherwise related to such service. In rendering this requested opinion, the examiner is asked to discuss the Veteran’s purported in-service fall that he sustained in March 1979 when he fell 20 feet through the floor of a jet onto a cement floor. Also, the examiner is asked to discuss the Veteran’s in-service 1992 fall in a bathtub which resulted in his now service-connected residuals of a low back injury with degenerative disc disease. See September 2002 rating decision. Also, the examiner must discuss the Veteran’s reports of a continuity of neck problems since service. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. An examiner’s report that he or she cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation is inadequate unless the examiner provides a rationale for that statement. As such, if the examiner is unable to offer an opinion, it is essential that the examiner provide 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. No action is required of the Veteran until he is notified by VA. However, he is advised of his obligation to cooperate in ensuring the duty to assist is satisfied. Kowalski v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (2005). His failure to report for a VA medical examination may impact the determination made. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran also is advised that he has the right to submit additional evidence and argument with respect to this matter. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This appeal must be afforded prompt treatment. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Perez, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.