Citation Nr: 20031297 Decision Date: 05/05/20 Archive Date: 05/05/20 DOCKET NO. 15-09 205 DATE: May 5, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine (claimed as lower back strain) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1979 to March 1983 and January 1990 to July 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a December 2018 decision, the Board denied service connection for a back disability. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court, in a November 2019 Order, vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the matter The JMR indicated that the Board erred in satisfying its duty to assist the Veteran in the development of her case because it failed to provide the Veteran with an adequate medical examination or opinion addressing entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine (claimed as lower back strain). The June 2013 examination relied on by the Board failed to adequately discuss credible lay evidence and provide a well-supported rationale incorporating consideration of the lay evidence. The Veteran told the examiner that she had a history of lumbar pain since the early 1990s and that the condition increased, and she was treated for it. She reported no lumbar injury since discharge from service, and no recent treatment for the condition, but that “[s]ince her military retirement, the pain ha[d] increased and [was] now daily and [was] constant.” Yet the examiner did not address these statements, and her rationale for concluding that there was no relation to service did not provide any rationale for disregarding the lay statements. The JMR stated that a remand was necessary for the Board to obtain a new VA medical opinion that adequately addresses the Veteran’s credible lay statements. The JMR further indicated that the Board did not address the fact that the examiner who performed the Veteran’s separation examination noted chronic low back pain on the examination. Moreover, in a June 1999 Report of Medical Assessment, the Veteran did report daily back pain, as well as treatment for backache problems. In her Report of Medical History, the Veteran noted recurrent back pain. The Board notes that these matters should be addressed in the new VA medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a VA medical opinion to address the nature and etiology of current low back disability including degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. The examiner should review the record. \The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is more likely than not, less likely than not, or at least as likely as not, that any current back disability had its clinical onset during service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury. The examiner should discuss the Veteran’s credible lay evidence, including the Veteran’s statements to the June 2013 VA examiner that she had a history of lumbar pain since the early 1990s and that the condition increased, and she was treated for it; that she had no lumbar injury since discharge from service; and no recent treatment for the condition, but that had back pain had been consistent and increasing since her military retirement. The examiner should also consider and comment on the Veteran’s separation examination when chronic low back pain was reported and the June 1999 Report of Medical Assessment in which the Veteran did report daily back pain, as well as treatment for backache problems. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed and conclusions reached. J. CONNOLLY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Anthony L. Hines 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.