Citation Nr: 21003068 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 13-18 821 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to October 19, 2015, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1966 to May 1969. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2015 and March 2018, the Board remanded these issues to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. The case was subsequently returned to the Board for appellate review. In a January 2019 decision, the Board denied the claims for service connection for a low back disorder and TDIU prior to October 19, 2015. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the January 2019 Board decision and remanded the matters for further adjudication consistent with its decision. In light of the June 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for additional development. Specifically, in the Memorandum Decision, the Court found that the Board relied on a November 2018 VA back examination that did not take into account the Veteran’s lay statements. In addition, the Court found that the Board did not weigh evidence suggesting that the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD affected his employability prior to October 19, 2015. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain a clarifying VA medical opinion that takes into account the Veteran’s statements regarding his claim for service connection for a low back disorder. In addition, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim for TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the other issue being remanded. Therefore, the service connection claim must be resolved prior to the resolution of the claim for TDIU. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (noting that the prohibition against the adjudication of claims that are inextricably intertwined is based upon the recognition that claims related to each other should not be subject to piecemeal decision-making or appellate litigation). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his low back disorder. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. Any outstanding VA medical records should also be obtained and associated with the claims file. 2. After the above development has been completed, a clarifying medical opinion should be obtained by a qualified clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any low back disorder that may be present. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran’s service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. For purposes of this opinion, the examiner should assume that the Veteran is a reliable historian. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the appellant, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a current low back disorder that is causally or etiologically related to his military service, to include any injury or symptomatology therein. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s contentions related to an in-service injury described in numerous statements within the record. (The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of a certain conclusion as it is to find against it.) J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Osegueda, 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.