Citation Nr: 21002055 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-46 414 DATE: January 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for thoracic spine degenerative disc disease (DDD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine DDD is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for headaches, to include as secondary to the cervical and thoracic spine DDD, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1999 to November 2003. This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is from a March 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board denied these claims in July 2019, and in response the Veteran appealed to the higher U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court/CAVC). In August 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), which the Court granted in an Order that same month, vacating the Board’s July 2019 decision denying these claims and remanding them back to the Board for further development and re-adjudication in compliance with directives specified. To comply with the Court-granted JMR, the Board, in turn, is remanding these claims back to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), i.e., back to the RO. Entitlement to service connection for thoracic spine DDD, cervical spine DDD, and secondary headaches is remanded. After additional review of the record, including the August 2020 JMR, the Board finds that further development of these claims is needed to comply with VA’s duty to assist in fully developing the facts and evidence concerning these claims. The August 2020 JMR found that VA examinations considered in the Board’s July 2019 denial of these claims were inadequate. Specifically, the July 2017 VA examiner did not provide adequate rationales supporting the opinions regarding the origins of the Veteran’s thoracic or cervical spine DDD or headaches. Concerning the Veteran’s claim for service connection for thoracic spine DDD, the July 2017 VA examiner noted the “aging process” as a generic factor but did not discuss why the Veteran’s age was a factor in his thoracic DDD, which is significant because the Veteran complained of upper back pain, neck pain, and headaches in 2011, when he was just 31 years old. Concerning the Veteran’s cervical spine, the July 2017 VA examiner failed to address the Veteran’s specific circumstances and medical history, including especially his motor vehicle accident (MVA) in service when he sustained injuries that included neck contusions and thoracic trauma. Finally, concerning the Veteran’s headaches, the examiner stated only that tension headaches generally have an unknown causation without addressing the Veteran’s specific medical history, including his reports of an onset during his service. Further, the examiner did not discuss how generic medical principles apply specifically to this Veteran.   Accordingly, these claims are REMANDED for the following action: 1. If there are outstanding records concerning these claims, obtain them and appropriately notify the Veteran if unable to obtain any additional records that he identifies with the required amount of information. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) and (e). 2. After receiving all additional medical or other relevant records, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the origins of the Veteran’s thoracic spine DDD – including in terms of addressing the July 2017 VA examination report stating his thoracic spine DDD is due to the general aging process. Specifically, the examiner is asked to address the Veteran’s reports to his chiropractor, A.D., of thoracic spine pain in 2011, so when the Veteran was only 31 years old (i.e., not old). 3. Also obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran’s cervical spine DDD is at least as likely as not related to the MVA during his service when he sustained injuries – including neck contusion and thoracic trauma.   4. As well, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran’s origins of the Veteran’s headaches – especially addressing his specific medical history (not just a general explanation that tension headaches have unknown causation), also considering his statements regarding an in-service onset or how generic medical principles apply to him, specifically. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Pak 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.