Citation Nr: 21001515 Decision Date: 01/08/21 Archive Date: 01/08/21 DOCKET NO. 13-09 900 DATE: January 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his cervical spine disability had onset during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from August 1967 to March 1969, including service in the Republic of Vietnam, from December 1975 to November 1978, and from December 1990 to April 1991. He also had additional reserve service. His decorations include the Navy Achievement Medal with Bronze Combat “V” and the Combat Action Ribbon. The Veteran appeals a July 2012 rating decision from the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. The Board, in an April 2016 decision, remanded the case back to the RO. In January 2016, the Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). In an August 2018 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. The Veteran appealed the Board’s August 2018 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which in a June 2019 order, granted the parties’ May 2019 joint motions for remand (JMR), vacating the Board’s August 2018 decision and remanding the claim for compliance with the terms of the JMR. Thus, in October 2019, the Board remanded this claim for further development in compliance with the Court’s June 2019 order granting the parties’ joint motion to remand. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. The Veteran states that his cervical spine disability is related to injury sustained during a weightlifting accident in a gym after a barbell fell and hit his neck while on active duty. In the May 2019 JMR, the parties determined that the Board relied on an inadequate VA examination report which did not comply with a prior remand order and provided an inadequate statement of reason or bases where it failed to address the Appellant’s competency and credibility to provide testimony as to the etiology of his condition. Thus, in October 2019, the Board remanded this claim for further development in compliance with the Court’s June 2019 order granting the parties’ joint motion to remand. The October 2019 Board remand specifically directed that a VA examiner acknowledge and discuss the Veteran’s competent report of the onset of cervical spine pain during the second period of service. A VA examination was afforded in February 2020. The February 2020 VA examiner stated only that the Veteran “reports sustaining a neck injury during service” but did not discuss the Veteran’s report in compliance with the October 2019 Board remand, thus failing to provide adequate rationale for his opinion. Further, the VA examiner stated that there was no ongoing treatment between discharge and the re-onset of pain in 2009, failing to address evidence of complaints of cervical spine pain prior to 2009, found in a November 2004 radiology consultation. Lastly, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran has degenerative arthritis that is more likely due to working as an EMT since separation from service than due to his in-service injury. However, VA received a statement in October 2020 from the Veteran explaining that he never worked as an EMT. See Veteran’s statement dated October 17, 2020. The Veteran is competent to report the symptoms he experiences, and his functional impairments and the Board finds them to be credible. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). In light of the Veteran’s competent, credible report of injury while on active duty that has continued since service and the lay and medical evidence of record, and resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the evidence indicates that the Veteran’s cervical spine disability had onset during active duty service. (Continued on the next page)   In light of the foregoing, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability must be granted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Booker 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.