Citation Nr: 21004032 Decision Date: 01/25/21 Archive Date: 01/25/21 DOCKET NO. 16-28 665 DATE: January 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability, to include as secondary to a low back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1977 to June 1980 and from January 1981 to January 1985. In a September 2019 decision, the Board reopened a claim for service connection for a low back disability, granted service connection for varicose veins, and denied entitlement to service connection for a low back disability and a neck disability. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacating only that portion of the September 2019 decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a low back disability and neck disability. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. The parties to the JMPR noted that the Board did not address whether lay statements in support of the Veteran’s claim support a finding of continuity of symptomatology since service. The Board finds that the October 2015 statements from the Veteran’s mother and his son are competent and credible for establishing continuous symptoms since service. As a result, the May 2016 VA examiner’s opinion is inadequate. The VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion based on finding no evidence to indicate that the Veteran’s treatment for low back pain during service would be responsible for the Veteran’s diagnosed low back disability. However, the examiner failed to address credible lay evidence of continued symptomatology since service made by the Veteran, his mother, and his son. Accordingly, a new opinion is necessary. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability, to include as secondary to a low back disability is remanded. Finally, because a decision on the remanded issue of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a neck disability, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claim is required. On remand, updated treatment records should be obtained. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. See also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992).    The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the Veteran for any low back or neck complaints since service not already associated with the record.  After securing the necessary release, take all appropriate action to obtain these records, including any VA treatment records August 2019.  2. After the completion of the above, obtain a medical opinion (with examination or telehealth interview if deemed necessary by the provider) on the likely etiology of any diagnosed back and neck disabilities. Copies of all pertinent records, including this remand, must be made available to the examiner for review. Based on the review of the record (and examination if needed), the examiner should answer the following: (a.) Identify all diagnosed back and neck disabilities. (b.) Is it at least as likely as not that any diagnosed back disability is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include his March 1984 in-service treatment for low back pain? Why or why not? The examiner should consider and discuss as necessary the Veteran’s credible lay testimony that his low back pain began during his active duty service and have continued since, and the credible lay statements from the Veteran’s mother and son that he has had back pain since returning from his active duty service. (c.) Is it at least as likely as not that any diagnosed neck disability is (i) caused or (ii) aggravated by (defined as any increase in disability) his low back disability? Why or why not? The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions in detail, citing to supporting clinical data and/or medical literature, as appropriate.  If an opinion cannot be provided, the examiner should indicate why.  M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Eric Struening 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.