Citation Nr: 20036167 Decision Date: 05/27/20 Archive Date: 05/27/20 DOCKET NO. 13-27 799 DATE: May 27, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1980 to April 1990. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. In January 2019, the Board, in pertinent part, denied service connection for a cervical spine disorder. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In December 2019, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties to the appeal (the Veteran, through an attorney, and representatives from VA General Counsel), thereby vacating the Board’s decision insofar as it denied service connection for a cervical spine disorder and remanding that matter for further development and readjudication. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder is remanded. In the JMPR filed with the Court, the parties to the appeal agreed that the Board erred when it found that the duty to assist had been satisfied. The parties noted that October 2011 and September 2017 VA examinations were inadequate because each examiner provided an insufficient rationale for their conclusion. Specifically, the October 2011 VA examiner opined “there is no documented chronicity of the Veteran’s neck condition” with no other rationale supporting this conclusion. Similarly, the September 2017 examiner stated “no subjective and/or documented and/or diagnostic evidence of a chronic neck condition while” on active duty as the rationale for her opinion. Both examiners solely relied on the absence of evidence and provided no other supporting rationale for their respective opinions that it was less likely than not that the cervical spine condition was caused by or a result of service. The parties to the JMPR agreed that, on remand, the Board must obtain an adequate medical opinion. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder. After reviewing the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, his period of active service. In so doing, the examiner must discuss the medical significance, if any, of an August 1982 service treatment record indicating that the Veteran reported a stiff neck with pain radiating down his back; and a January 1984 service treatment record documenting that he reported for treatment with complaints of pain to the back of his neck and right shoulder blade. The examiner must also discuss the significance, if any, of the lay statements of record. A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. In this regard, the examiner is advised that he or she may not rely solely on the absence of evidence, without some other supporting rationale for the conclusion(s) reached. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Kettler, 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.