Citation Nr: 21061819 Decision Date: 10/05/21 Archive Date: 10/05/21 DOCKET NO. 15-33 167 DATE: October 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1969 to February 1972, to include service in Vietnam. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Bay Pines, Florida. In September 2018, the Board reopened and denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a lumbar spine disability. He appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2019, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand filed by the parties to the appeal (the Veteran, through an attorney, and representatives from VA General Counsel), thereby vacating the Board's decision insofar as it denied service connection for a lumbar spine disability and remanding the matter for readjudication. In September 2019, October 2020, and April 2021, the Board remanded the case to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. On each occasion, after taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, the Board finds deficiencies in a June 2021 VA medical opinion regarding the Veteran's claimed lumbar spine disability. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). A remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim and to afford him every possible consideration. In the June 2021 VA medical opinion, a VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability had its onset in service. First, the examiner indicated that the current disability was not related to a lumbar strain during service. She explained that a lumbar strain is a transient inflammation of the muscles and ligaments, while degenerative disc disease is a degenerative process of the disc and vertebral bodies. The examiner further stated that, according to various studies, lumbar strain is not the cause, or related to, degenerative disc disease. The examiner also opined that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease was not greater than expected for his natural age (60); therefore, it was not caused by jump school. This opinion is insufficient to decide the claim. First, the examiner did not provide a full rationale as to why the Veteran's age precluded a finding that his current disability was related to jump school. Rather, the examiner appeared to reach that conclusion summarily. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A] medical opinion . . . must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). Additionally, in an August 2021 Post-Remand Brief, the Veteran's representative identified a medical article which indicates that there can be causal links between back pain due to injury to the muscles, tendons, and ligaments that support the spine and subsequent degenerative disease. Specifically, a referenced article from the Arthritis Foundation states that "[m]ost back pain is due to an injury to the muscles, tendons or ligaments that support the spine. These are usually short-term problems, but in some cases, these injuries can lead to arthritis." Under the circumstances, a remand is warranted for another medical opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran's lumbar spine disability. The electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. Following a review of the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, service, to include the Veteran's in-service parachute jumps. In so doing, the examiner should consider the Veteran's lay statements with respect to the nature, onset, and continuity of symptoms. If lay assertions in any regard are discounted, the examiner should clearly so state, and explain why. If the Veteran's current condition is found to be more likely attributable to aging, versus other causes, to include in-service parachute jumps, the examiner should explain the basis for that conclusion. The examiner should also consider the article from the Arthritis Foundation cited by the Veteran's representative in support of a connection between back pain and later degenerative disease. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner selected to offer the requested opinions. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the action taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the 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 R. Kettler, 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.