Citation Nr: 21063938 Decision Date: 10/18/21 Archive Date: 10/18/21 DOCKET NO. 10-41 752 DATE: October 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased initial evaluation for service-connected residuals of a back injury, thoracic spine strain with spondylosis (back disability), currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling prior to August 15, 2013, and as 20 percent disabling from January 2, 2014, to September 24, 2015, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Navy with active duty from November 1981 to November 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which granted service connection for the Veteran's back disability and assigned a noncompensable rating. Jurisdiction was subsequently transferred to the Atlanta, Georgia, RO, when, in March 2014, the RO expanded and recharacterized the Veteran's back disability and granted the Veteran's claim for an initial compensable evaluation to 10 percent prior to August 15, 2013, assigned a 40 percent evaluation from August 15, 2013, to January 1, 2014, and a 20 percent evaluation as of January 2, 2014. Pursuant to the Board's August 2015 remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his back disability claim and in an October 2015 rating decision, his disability rating was increased to 40 percent with an effective date of September 25, 2015. In May of 2015, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. This claim was most recently before the Board in April 2019, at which time it was remanded for further development. 1. Entitlement to an increased initial evaluation for service-connected residuals of a back injury, thoracic spine strain with spondylosis (back disability), currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling prior to August 15, 2013, and as 20 percent disabling from January 2, 2014, to September 24, 2015 Pursuant to the December 2020 Board remand, a VA addendum opinion was submitted in April 2021 in connection to which the VA examiner was asked to estimate any additional range of motion loss based on the results of the December 2010 and January 2014 VA examinations. The examiner did not provide such estimates, concluded that "[e]veryone is different. I cannot give a specific range of motion loss without speculating." Furthermore, she was asked, to the best of her ability, to provide any increased symptoms and degrees of limitation of motion based on the functional loss described in previous VA examinations and the May 2015 Travel Board hearing testimony. The examiner merely reiterated the noted functional limitations. These findings are insufficient, and the Board concludes that a new addendum opinion is necessary. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination, it must obtain a fully adequate one. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); see also Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1, 12 (2001) (emphasizing the Board's duty to return an inadequate examination report "if further evidence or clarification of the evidence... is essential for a proper appellate decision."). The Board also notes the objection made by the Veteran's representative regarding the expertise of the April 2021 examiner and finds that a more appropriate specialist is warranted to adjudicate these claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Provide the Veteran's file to an orthopedic specialist for a retroactive addendum opinion. The Veteran's entire claims file, to include a copy of this decision, should be made available to the examiner. Following a complete review of the record, the examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: (a.) Determine in terms of your best estimate as to whether the Veteran's range of motion results from the December 2010 and January 2014 VA examinations would have been reduced if tested in both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. To the examiner's best ability, the additional range of motion loss should be described and an estimate provided in degrees. If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinion in this case, he or she should clearly explain the basis for this decision. (b.) The examiner should also provide an opinion regarding the extent of the Veteran's functional loss as described in his December 2010 and January 2014 VA examinations, his pertinent lay statements from the May 2015 travel board hearing and at time of the VA examinations, and relevant contemporaneous VA treatment records such as therapy notes and orthopedic evaluations. To the examiner's best ability, provide the requested findings in your best estimate (increased symptoms and limitation of motion with the latter expressed in degrees) based on this information. To this point, the Board notes that the record for review is replete with lay and medical evidence outlining the Veteran's low back symptoms since, at least, 2010. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Daniels, 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.