Citation Nr: 21001077 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 19-14 824A DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2003 to July 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in May 2018 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine disorder. The Veteran asserts that he has a current cervical spine disorder related to his military service. Specifically, he contends that such disorder is a result of carrying a saxophone, which was held in place by a neck strap and weighed approximately 4.3 to 11 pounds, for eight hours per day as a musician in service. In this regard, while his service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis referable to a cervical spine disorder, his service personnel records reflect that his military occupational specialty was musician and, thus, carrying a saxophone with a strap worn around his neck is consistent with his in-service duties. Additionally, current private and VA treatment record reflects complaints of cervical spine pain and assessments of cervical disc disorder, cervicalgia, spinal stenosis in cervical region, and degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc. Furthermore, in an August 2017 private treatment record, Dr. A.G. noted that the Veteran has advanced degeneration of the cervical spine for a 33-year old “which could also be blamed on military history”. Further, the Veteran submitted a September 2018 letter from Dr. F.L., a private physician, who reported that the Veteran was evaluated for chronic neck, lower back, and bilateral shoulder pain and stated that “this condition can be caused by Military Service”. Upon review, however, the Board finds the statements contained in the August 2017 private treatment record and September 2018 letter inadequate to award service connection. In particular, the Board finds the physicians’ respective utilizations of speculative language in the form of “could be” and “can be” detract from the probative value of the opinions. In this regard, VA regulations and the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims provide that medical opinions that are speculative, general, or inconclusive in nature do not provide a sufficient basis upon which to support a claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Jones v. Shinseki, 23, Vet. App. 382, 389-90 (2010); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006); Goss v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 109, 114 (1996). Additionally, neither physician provided a rationale for the favorable nexus opinions. Furthermore, Dr. A.G. failed to clearly identify the disorder for which the favorable opinion was being provided. Nonetheless, in light of the Veteran’s in-service duties, an indication of a current cervical spine disorder, and the suggestion that such may be related to his military service, the Board finds a remand is warranted in order to afford him a VA examination so as to determine the nature and etiology of his cervical spine disorder. Finally, VA treatment records dated in May 2019 and January 2020 indicate the Veteran was treated for chronic neck pain. According to such records, however, the actual reports of such treatment were scanned into the VistA Imaging system and, thus, are not include in the VA treatment records on file. Consequently, on remand, such should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records pertinent to treatment for the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder, to include those scanned into the VistA Imaging system. 2. Afford the Veteran an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed cervical spine disorder. Following a review of the record and any necessary testing, the examiner should address the following inquiries: (A) Identify all current cervical spine disorders that have been present at any point pertinent to the Veteran’s May 2017 claim, even if such is asymptomatic or has since resolved. In particular, the examiner should address the August 2017 private treatment record reflecting diagnoses of cervical disc disorder, cervicalgia, spinal stenosis in cervical region, and degeneration of cervical intervertebral disc. If no cervical spine disorder is diagnosed, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s cervical spine symptomatology results in functional impairment of earning capacity. If so, the examiner is advised that he or she should accept that the Veteran has a disability for the purpose of rendering the opinions requested below. (B) For each cervical spine disability found to be present, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that such had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran’s military service, to include as a result of his in-service duties of carrying a saxophone. (C) If arthritis is diagnosed, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether such manifested within one year of the Veteran’s separation from active duty in July 2010 (i.e., by July 2011). If so, please describe the manifestations. In offering such opinions, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s reports regarding the onset and continuity of symptomatology. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. M. Celli, 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.