Citation Nr: 21004343 Decision Date: 01/26/21 Archive Date: 01/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-15 065A DATE: January 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for disability of the cervical spine is remanded. Entitlement to a temporary total rating for disability of the cervical spine based on treatment necessitating convalescence under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1971 to July 1974, to include service in Vietnam. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia. In March 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. This case was previously before the Board in September 2019, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for disability of the cervical spine. While this case was in remand status, the Veteran submitted a July 2019 statement from a physician, M.A., indicating that the Veteran had a disability of the cervical spine that began or was permanently aggravated during service. Unfortunately, no rationale was offered for that conclusion. As such, the opinion is inadequate to support an award of service connection. See, e.g., Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008) (“it is the factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion . . . that contributes probative value to a medical opinion”). The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2020. The examiner concluded that the Veteran’s current neck condition was due to a 2012 motor vehicle accident, followed by surgery in 2014. In determining that the Veteran’s current condition was due to a 2012 motor vehicle accident, the examiner did not address evidence of a neck disability prior to 2012. For example, in June 2006 medical treatment records, the Veteran reported neck pain after a motor vehicle accident. In November 2006, he had neck pain. He continued to report neck pain in February and March 2007. An addendum opinion is necessary to address whether the Veteran’s current neck condition existed prior to 2012. Updated records of VA treatment should also be procured. See, e.g., Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (holding that VA is charged with constructive notice of medical evidence in its possession). 2. Entitlement to a temporary total rating for disability of the cervical spine based on treatment necessitating convalescence under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.30. This issue is inextricably intertwined with the resolution of the remanded issue. See, e.g., Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (issues are “inextricably intertwined” when a decision on one issue would have a “significant impact” on an appellant’s claim for another issue). Accordingly, this issue will be remanded as well.  These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. To the extent possible, make arrangements to provide the record on appeal to the VA examiner who previously offered opinions with respect to the etiology of the Veteran’s cervical spine disability in January 2020. The examiner should be asked to again review the record and prepare a supplemental report as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran has a disability of the cervical spine that had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his period of active service. In so doing, the examiner should address the medical significance, if any, of the medical records reflecting the Veteran’s treatment for neck pain in 2006 and 2007, following a motor vehicle accident. If the January 2020 examiner is no longer employed by VA or is otherwise unable to provide the opinion(s) requested, arrange to obtain the requested information from another qualified examiner. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner(s) selected to offer the requested opinions. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issues on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Smith, 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.