Citation Nr: 21063239 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 18-20 208 DATE: October 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for low back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1973 to April 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from July 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). These claims were previously before the Board in June 2019. In a June 2019 decision, the Board denied service connection for these claims. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a February 2021 decision, the Court vacated the June 2019 Board decision and remanded the matters back to the Board. The matters have now come back before the Board for adjudication. 1. Low Back Disorder Unfortunately, the Board finds a remand is necessary for further development. Specifically, the Board finds the June 2016 VA medical opinion failed to address the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) from August 1973. The Veteran's August 1973 STRs noted that the Veteran was injured when he fell off a pole and landed on his left side and left leg. It was further noted that he returned 11 days after for treatment again for these injuries. Unfortunately, the Board finds the June 2016 VA examiner failed to consider this evidence when making his medical opinion. In the June 2016 VA medical opinion, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's low back disorder resulted in or was caused by his active military service. The examiner noted that he was diagnosed with a lumbar strain on June 3, 1973 and August 24, 1973 while in service. See June 2016 VA Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). The examiner failed to address all the continued treatment the Veteran received during service for his back strain Furthermore, the examiner's rationale in support of his medical opinion simply stated that the Veteran did not have any further back problems until his injury at work in 1980. See id. The Board finds the rationale is inadequate to support the opinion. 2. Bilateral Lower Extremity Radiculopathy Upon readjudication, the Board finds a remand is warranted. The Court remanded this matter as being inextricably intertwined with the claim for service connection for low back disorder. As the outcome of the Veteran's service connection for low back disorder claim could impact the outcome for this matter, the Board finds that the matter is this inextricably intertwined with the Veteran's claim being remanded herein. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Remand of the inextricably intertwined claim is therefore also required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: The RO should obtain a new VA medical opinion for the claim for service connection for low back disorder. An in-person examination is not necessary unless the examiner determines it must be conducted to address the questions below. The examiner is asked to specifically address the following, with a rationale provided: Whether the Veteran's low back disorder, and any secondary radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities, is at least as likely as not (at least an approximate balance of positive and negative balance) incurred in or caused by the Veteran's military service. The examiner must specifically address the Veteran's STRs, to include the June 1973 back strain, June 1973 back injury, June 1973 continued back pain, July 1973 back pain, and August 1973 records. The examiner must address all lay statements that include in-service symptomatology. All opinions must be supported by a rationale. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Glaeser, Jennifer 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.