Citation Nr: 21002584 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 15-34 472 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from January 1955 to December 1957. In a June 2019 decision, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the Veteran's claim. The matter has been returned to the Board following a joint motion for remand (JMR) filed by the parties before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The issue of service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: In his November 2014 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated that he injured his back in an incident that occurred in-service in June 1956 when he fell into a foxhole. The Veteran has also stated that he received treatment for his back pain while in service in 1957. Also, in his November 2014 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated that in February 1958 he was treated at Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Harbor City, California for a back injury. The RO must request that the Veteran complete and return a consent to release these medical records. All attempts to obtain these records should be documented in the record. The Veteran should be notified of the status of all requests for information. 2. Contact the JSRRC and any other appropriate repository of military records and obtain all available records related to the injury causing incident and related treatment. All responses should be documented in the record. The Veteran should be notified of the status of all requests for information. 3. After the above directives have been completed, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, in accordance with established VA examination protocols, with the examiner who conducted the February 2019 VA examination. If the examiner is no longer available, schedule an examination with an appropriate VA examiner to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. * The examiner should address whether the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder was caused by his service. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: * The Veteran contends that he injured in back in-service in June 1956 and that he received treatment for his back in-service in 1957. * The November 1957 separation examination indicates normal clinical evaluations of the spine and musculoskeletal system. * The Veteran contends that he received treatment for his back post-service in February 1958. * A May 2010 VA treatment record indicates an MRI showing osteomyelitis of the upper cervical spine. * December 2014 imaging indicates severe degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine. * A February 2015 medical record indicates congenital spinal canal narrowing and spinal canal stenosis of the cervical spine. * In March 2015, the Veteran underwent a laminectomy to relieve cervical spinal cord compression. * In a December 2015 VA treatment record, the Veteran reported that his cervical spine symptoms began after his service injury and progressively worsened. * In a February 2019 VA examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s self-reported in-service injury could be contributing to his current neck symptoms but that without any imaging or evaluation at the time of the incident it was difficult to assess the relationship between his prior injury and his current symptoms. * In his February 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he has had continuous symptoms since his service. 4. Following the review and any additional development deemed necessary, re-adjudicate the claim. Should the claim not be granted in its entirety, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and forward the claim to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). 5. This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Timothy T. Emmart 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.