Citation Nr: 21064244 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-03 559 DATE: October 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Navy (USN) from October 2001 to October 2005. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) December 2014 rating decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). This matter was previously denied by the Board in a January 2019 decision. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court, in pertinent part, vacated the Board's January 2019 decision and remanded the claim back to the Board for additional development. Specifically, the Court held that the Board erred by relying on an inadequate VA examination from June 2016 when it denied service connection, as the examiner failed to account for relevant details in the Veteran's medical history. The Court directed the Board to remand the Veteran's claim for additional development, including obtaining an adequate addendum opinion and/or medical examination. In July 2021, the Board, pursuant to the Court's January 2010 Memorandum Decision, remanded the Veteran's claim for additional development. Specifically, the Board requested that the AOJ obtain an addendum medical opinion that addressed the Veteran's relevant medical history, including (but not limited to) her lay statements that her back has hurt since her active duty, and her regular lifting and moving of heavy objects. A Board remand confers upon the appellant the right to compliance with that order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, is required. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). As discussed below, the Board finds that the newly obtained VA examination failed to properly address certain portions of the Veteran's lay testimony and medical history. Therefore, there has not been substantial compliance with the July 2021 Board remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). While the Board regrets the additional delay, a further remand is necessary to allow the Veteran to properly develop her claim. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that her current back disability is caused by, or otherwise due to, her active-duty service. As noted above, the Veteran's claim was most recently remanded by the Board in July 2021. The Board specifically requested that the AOJ obtain an etiological opinion regarding her disability from a qualified medical examiner. The examiner was to address the relevant "evidence of record," which includes the Veteran's lay testimony. In August 2021 the AOJ obtained an addendum medical opinion as requested. The examiner noted that the Veteran's current condition, diagnosed as arthritis, is "unrelated" to the Veteran's in-service lipoma. However, even though the examiner noted that the Veteran's "VA treatment records ... demonstrate back pain from carrying heavy equipment during service," the examiner did not opine on what effect, if any, the carrying of heavy equipment would have on the development of arthritis. Furthermore, the examiner did not address the Veteran's lay statements that her back pain began in service and "persisted through the years." See September 2015 Correspondence. The Board finds that, as the July 2021 examiner did not fully address the Veteran's lay statements or the relevant portions of the Veteran's post-service medical records. While the Board regrets the additional delay, a further remand is necessary to allow the Veteran to fully develop her claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion, from a qualified medical professional, regarding the etiology of the Veteran's back disability. The examiner shall be provided with a copy of the Veteran's claims file, as well as a copy of these remand directives. The examiner must provide the following opinion: (a.) Whether it is as least as likely as not (approximately 50 percent chance or greater) that the Veteran's current back disability is caused by, or otherwise due to, her active duty service. The examiner must specifically address the Veteran's post-service VA treatment records that show back pain "from carrying heavy equipment during service," as well as her lay statements that her back pain began in service and has "persisted through the years." The examiner must provide a complete rationale for the required opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide the necessary opinions without an in-person examination of the Veteran, the AOJ shall schedule the necessary examination at a time convenient to the Veteran. If the examiner is unable to provide the required opinions without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must explain why that is the case. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Neville, 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.