Citation Nr: 20021616 Decision Date: 03/26/20 Archive Date: 03/26/20 DOCKET NO. 17-33 696 DATE: March 26, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder impingement syndrome with tendonitis (claimed as rotator cuff condition) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder strain with impingement syndrome and tendonitis (claimed as rotator cuff condition) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the Army from August 1999 to March 2000 and from August 2000 to August 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2016 rating decision by Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied service connection for right shoulder impingement syndrome with tendonitis and service connection for left shoulder strain with impingement syndrome and tendonitis. 1. Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder impingement syndrome with tendonitis is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder strain with impingement syndrome and tendonitis is remanded. The Veteran states he was evaluated at Fort Bliss Texas and diagnosed with bursitis of both shoulders when he returned home from Iraq. See August 2016 VA Exam and January 2017 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). It remains unclear as to whether all the records from Fort Bliss Texas are associated with the Veteran’s claims file. A remand is necessary to obtain all STRs from Fort Bliss Texas from March 26, 2004 (departure from Iraq) to August 23, 2005 (date of discharge). Further, as to the Veteran’s left shoulder, the examiner based his negative opinion on the finding that there was no documentation of continuity of care. However, the Veteran reports that he sustained an injury to the shoulder, that he noticed a gradual onset of pain/stiffness, and was diagnosed with bursitis contemporaneous to his service discharge. The Veteran also recalls having an evaluation of his left shoulder condition in 2006, within a year of discharge. These lay reports should be addressed. Similarly, as to the Veteran’s right shoulder, a nexus opinion has not been provided. The VA examination assessed both the left and right current shoulder disabilities and the diagnoses are consistent with what the Veteran is claiming regarding the right shoulder. The only question is one of etiology as a medical opinion has not been provided. Again, an addendum opinion should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's STRs from Fort Bliss Texas from March 26, 2004 to August 23, 2005. Actions taken to obtain these records should be noted within the record. 2. After completing the above, obtain an addendum opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s left and right shoulder disabilities, to include impingement syndrome with tendonitis. A new examination should be set up if such is deemed necessary. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether there is any evidence to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran experienced an injury to his right shoulder or experienced a chronic right shoulder disorder in service. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s right shoulder impingement syndrome with tendonitis had its onset in-service or within a year of service discharge or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. If no such relationship is found, the examiner is asked to identify what symptoms would have been caused by the presently claimed impingement syndrome. (c.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s left shoulder strain with impingement syndrome and tendonitis had its onset in-service or within a year of service discharge or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. If no such relationship is found, the examiner is asked to identify what symptoms would have been caused by the presently claimed impingement syndrome. The examiner must comment on and discuss the lay contentions made in the record. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state why an opinion cannot be provided. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Smith, 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.