Citation Nr: 21003352 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 13-25 296 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty for training from June 1982 to September 1982 and on active duty from July 1986 and March 1993. When this case was most recently before the Board in May 2019, the above-noted issue was remanded for further development. The case has since been returned for additional appellate review. REASONS FOR REMAND As previously noted, the Veteran has indicated her cervical spine disability originated in service. In particular, the Veteran has reported the rigors of her military occupation, which entailed standing for long periods, may have resulted in her cervical spine disabilities. She has also reported experiencing ongoing neck pain since service. Her service treatment records show several reports of neck pain. A review of the evidence also indicates the Veteran has been diagnosed with both cervical spine degenerative disc disease, as well as spondylosis. Therefore, the central issue in this case is whether the Veteran’s current cervical spine disabilities were incurred in or caused by service. In the course of the May 2019 remand, the Board found an addendum medical opinion was necessary, because the February 2018 VA examiner provided merely conclusory statements to support his negative medical opinion. The Board specifically instructed the examiner to provide a fully articulated rationale, which supported his opinion, and was based on all evidence of record including the Veteran’s assertions. The RO obtained the requested addendum medical opinion in December 2019. In sum, the physician found the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease was less likely than not incurred in service, because of an absence of a diagnosis of the condition in service. The examiner again wholly ignored the Veteran’s reports of ongoing neck pain since service. He also failed to discuss the Veteran’s assertions that her military occupational duties may have contributed to her current neck disability. In addition, the examiner failed to provide an opinion as to the Veteran’s cervical spondylosis, which was diagnosed during the pendency of this claim. Examiners cannot wholly rely on a lack of contemporaneous treatment or diagnosis, and ignore a veteran’s statements related to lay observable symptoms. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). Additionally, as previously noted, a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Based on the foregoing insufficiencies, the Board finds a new VA examination and medical opinion must be obtained. Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following actions: Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise, who has not previously examined the Veteran, to address the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed cervical spine disability. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner should state an opinion with respect to whether any diagnosed cervical spine disability, to specifically include degenerative disc disease and spondylosis, at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) originated during her periods of active service or are otherwise etiologically related to her active service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any proffered opinion. In this regard, the examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran’s competent lay statements, to include her reports of neck pain in service, which has persisted. Additionally, the examiner must discuss the Veteran’s treatment for neck pain in service on several occasions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Fraser, 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.