Citation Nr: 21001099 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-47 871 DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, related to the sciatic nerve, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbar spondylosis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served from May 1996 to September 1996, August 1999 to April 2000, and February 2003 to May 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. This issue was previously addressed and remanded by the Board in an August 2019 decision. The requested development has been partially completed; however, the Board finds an additional remand is necessary. 1. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, related to the sciatic nerve, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbar spondylosis, is remanded. In this post-remand case, the Veteran contends he is entitled to service connection for peripheral neuropathy to include as secondary to his service-connected lumbar spondylosis with degenerative arthritis. The Veteran was initially examined in November 2012 for claims of radiculopathy; however, the examiner found no evidence or symptoms. In contrast, the Veteran submitted provide medical evidence from a chiropractor dated October 2015 diagnosing the Veteran with spondylosis with radiculopathy. The Veteran testified that he experienced numbness and tingling in his feet and radiating pain in his legs. In the August 2019 decision, the Board determined a remand was necessary in order to provide the Veteran with a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his neuropathy. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a peripheral nerve condition or peripheral neuropathy. The examiner found evidence of moderate intermittent pain in the right lower extremity, mild paresthesias and/or dysesthesias in the left and right lower extremities, moderate numbness in the right lower extremity, and mild numbness in the left lower extremity. The examiner found mild incomplete paralysis of the left and right sciatic nerve. As for functional impact, the Veteran stated his symptoms reduce work efficiency at times. An examiner opined that, based on the EMG/NCS findings, “it appears that the Veteran suffers from polyneuropathy not likely to be related to lumbar spondylosis.” Further, the examiner opined that lumbar spondylosis causes focal radiculopathy and not polyneuropathy. However, the Boards finds a remand is necessary. First, the Board finds the opinion to be inadequate because the examiner fails to describe the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s polyneuropathy. Second, a remand is necessary to address whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed polyneuropathy was caused by or aggravated by his service-connected lumbar spondylosis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Finally, the examiner failed to address whether the Veteran’s polyneuropathy is directly related to active service, which includes service in the Persian Gulf. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain an additional addendum opinion from the December 2019/June 2020 or other appropriate examiner to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s polyneuropathy. If the examiners are unavailable, the new examiner should determine whether an additional examination is necessary in order to respond to the question below. The examiner is asked to review the claims file, take into consideration the Veteran’s lay statements, and provide the following information: (a.) Opine on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s polyneuropathy was incurred in or caused by his active duty service, which includes service in the Persian Gulf; and (b.) Whether his polyneuropathy was caused or aggravated by his service-connected lumbar spondylosis. The examiner should set forth all examination findings with a clear rationale for conclusions reached. 2. Thereafter, the AOJ must adjudicate the issue remaining on appeal in light of any additional evidence added to the record. If the benefit remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and be afforded the applicable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. DeBoer, 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.