Citation Nr: 21064703 Decision Date: 10/21/21 Archive Date: 10/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-10 379 DATE: October 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1988 to September 2014. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. The Veteran asserts that he has a current left lower extremity radiculopathy disability that is related to his active service or was caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. The Veteran had an examination for his claimed left lower extremity radiculopathy disability in November 2014. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of left lower extremity radiculopathy because there is no pathology to render a diagnosis. The Veteran had additional examinations for his back and knee disabilities in November 2016. The examiners noted that the Veteran did not have left lower extremity radiculopathy. The Board finds the November 2014 and November 2016 examinations to be inadequate. The Veteran has reported functional limitations and pain and the examinations did not clearly address whether the Veteran's pain resulted in functional impairment of earning capacity. Since pain and evidence of functional impairment of earning capacity can meet the criteria for a current disability, a remand is warranted to consider whether the Veteran's reported symptoms result in such functional impairment. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate physician to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed left lower extremity radiculopathy disability. The examiner should confirm whether the Veteran has a current left lower extremity radiculopathy disability, to account for his pain. Specifically, the examiner is asked to comment on any functional impairment found due to that pain, (even if not rising to the level of a diagnosable condition). If there is such impairment, the examiner is asked to opine as to the following: a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's current left lower extremity radiculopathy functional impairment or diagnosed disability is related to his active service. In forming the opinion, the examiner must discuss the lay statements of record. b) Notwithstanding the above, is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that a left lower extremity radiculopathy functional impairment or diagnosed disability was caused by the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, to include his service-connected back disability? c) Notwithstanding the above, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that a left lower extremity radiculopathy functional impairment or diagnosed disability is aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, to include his service-connected back disability? Note that aggravation means any incremental increase in disability in non-service-connected disabilities (i.e., any additional impairment of earning capacity) resulting from service-connected conditions. The examiner is asked to explain the reasons behind any opinions expressed and conclusions reached. Note that the absence of documented medical treatment or diagnosis in the service treatment records cannot serve as the sole basis for a negative opinion. Lay contentions must be considered and weighed in making the determination as to whether a nexus exists. The examiner is reminded that the term "as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of medical possibility," but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner's expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as it is to find against it. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David M. Sebstead, 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.