Citation Nr: 21003046 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 13-35 200 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent before July 2, 2020, and higher than 30 percent from July 2, 2020, for cervical spine degenerative joint disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chest pain, claimed as secondary to the cervical spine disability, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, claimed as secondary to the cervical spine disability, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, claimed as secondary to the cervical spine disability, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1968 to June 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2010 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, the Board remanded the matter for VA medical examinations. Unfortunately, the Board finds that additional remand is required. First, though an updated VA examination was provided in July 2020 regarding the current severity of the Veteran’s cervical spine disability, the examiner found repeated use over time pain would significantly limit functional ability but failed to provide any reason why she could not offer an estimate of additional lost range-of-motion without speculating. The US Court of Appeals for Veterans claims has held that examiners must explain whether the basis for the inability to provide an opinion without speculating reflects a limitation in the medical community at large or is based on her own lack of expertise, insufficient information, or unprocured testing. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017). Thus, the Board must remand for an addendum opinion that addresses this inadequacy. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Regarding all the claims, the record reflects that the Veteran has applied for and received a decision regarding disability benefits through the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, there are no SSA records currently within the Veteran’s file, and VA is considered in constructive possession of SSA records with a duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining such records. Thus, the Board must remand to obtain the outstanding SSA records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); see Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466-67 (1998); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the Veteran’s claims file any VA treatment records not already of record. 2. Undertake appropriate action to associate any Social Security Administration records with the Veteran’s claims file. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from the clinician who performed the July 2020 cervical spine examination. If she is unavailable, schedule the Veteran for a new examination regarding the severity of his cervical spine disability, addressing all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The clinician must attempt to provide an estimate, in terms of range of motion, of any additional functional loss with repeated use of the cervical spine over time, to include the additional limitation of functional ability due to pain as found in the July 2020 VA examination. If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the inability is due to insufficient testing by the examiner and/or his or her lack of expertise, or due to a limitation of the medical community at large. Additionally, if possible, please review the January 24, 2017 VA examination, as well as the other relevant evidence around this time period, and estimate in terms of range of motion the additional functional loss during flare-ups reported at the January 24, 2017. 4. After the above development and any other development deemed necessary is completed, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Davis, 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.