Citation Nr: 21066728 Decision Date: 11/02/21 Archive Date: 11/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-23 715 DATE: November 2, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from October 1994 to December 1996. In December 2018, the Veteran testified before the Board at a videoconference hearing. In September 2021, the Board informed the Veteran that the Veterans Law Judge he testified before was no longer employed at the Board and offered him the opportunity to testify at another hearing. The Veteran did not request another hearing within the allotted 30 days. As such, the Board may proceed with appellate review. In July 2018 and September 2020, the Board remanded the claim for additional development. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his currently diagnosed neck disorder is the result of an in-service fall from an A-frame fast rope. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2021. The Veteran reported that he injured his neck during service when he fell and landed on his head. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's neck disorder was incurred in or caused by service, including a reported injury sustained when he fell from an A-frame during service. The Board finds that the VA medical opinion is inadequate for adjudication purposes. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The examiner listed 18 pieces of evidence and stated that there was no evidence in the record to support an ongoing neck problem. The examiner did not explain how such evidence supported his conclusion, especially in light of the Veterans lay statements of record. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (holding that a medical opinion that contains only data and conclusions without any supporting analysis is accorded no weight). In addition, the Veteran is now service connected for a bilateral shoulder disorder. In a February 2014 statement, the Veteran reported in-service treatment for arm and shoulder problems and stated that the medical providers did not attempt to relate the problems to his neck. Accordingly, a remand is required to determine whether the Veteran's neck disorder is directly related to service or secondary to his service-connected bilateral shoulder disorder. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran's claim. If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 2. Then, the AOJ should obtain an addendum medical from the examiner who conducted the Veteran's April 2021 examination. If this examiner is no longer available, then the claims file must be returned to a physician of similar expertise. Another examination of the Veteran should only be performed if deemed necessary by the person providing the opinion. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Following a review of the relevant records and lay statements, the examiner must provide an opinion as to the following: (a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater degree of probability) that the Veteran's neck disorder began in or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active duty service. (b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater degree of probability) that the Veteran's neck disorder was caused or aggravated by his service-connected shoulder disorders. (Continued on the next page) The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. 3. Then, the AOJ should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. McKinley, 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.