Citation Nr: 20007991 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 15-01 045 DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right radiocapitellar joint (claimed as torn ligaments of the right arm) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1968 to October 1970. In September 2018, the Board remanded this appeal for further development. With respect to the Veteran’s claim on appeal, unfortunately, the Board finds further development is warranted. The Veteran contends that during service, while working as a guard in a maximum-security building, as he was letting one of the prisoners out to use the bathroom, they got into an altercation. The Veteran contends that he was knocked down the stairway, injuring his right elbow. See November 2012 Statement in Support of Claim. In May 2013 non-VA medical records,Dr. C.M.. noted that the Veteran reported a history of right elbow pain due to an in-service incident. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2019. The VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with posttraumatic degenerative changes of radiocapitellar joint of the right elbow and healed right radial head fracture. In the associated June 2019 VA medical opinion, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s current right arm disability was less likely than not related to the Veteran’s service. The rationale was that the Veteran was seen for a cyst on the right arm during service and that there is no relationship between the Veteran’s in-service treatment and his current right elbow condition. The VA examiner noted that there was no other diagnosis of an elbow or wrist condition in service. The Board finds that this medical opinion is inadequate because it fails to consider the Veteran’s lay statements that he has suffered ongoing right elbow pain since his fell down the stairway during an in-service altercation with the prisoner. See Miller v. Wilkie, 18-2796, (Jan 16, 2020). Although the VA examiner noted in the report that the Veteran reported ongoing elbow pain since his in-service altercation, simply noting the Veteran’s statements, without actual discussion of the Veteran’s lay contentions is insufficient. Therefore, the Board is not satisfied with the examiner’s opinion that does not in any meaningful way discuss the specifics of the Veteran’s contentions. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007). Given such, an addendum opinion that addresses the Veteran’s reports of ongoing elbow pain since his fall during service is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request an addendum opinion from a qualified professional, with respect to the Veteran’s right arm disability. The examiner must review the ENTIRE claims file, to include this REMAND. The VA examiner is requested to address the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s degenerative joint disease of the right radiocapitellar joint was incurred in or related to the Veteran’s active service. In providing this opinion the VA examiner must address the following: The examiner MUST discuss the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the history and chronicity of symptomatology, to include the Veteran’s ongoing reports of related to his right arm pain. S/HE should outline that history in the report. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports of symptomatology, a reason for doing so must be provided. Any opinion expressed by the VA examiner must “contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Abdelbary, 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.