Citation Nr: 21066766 Decision Date: 11/02/21 Archive Date: 11/02/21 DOCKET NO. 18-45 312 DATE: November 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1978 to February 1984 and November 1990 to April 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing conducted by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. VA must "make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). As part of the duty to assist, VA must, in appropriate cases, obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency, such as the Social Security Administration (SSA). 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Relevant records are those records that relate to the injury for which the claimant is seeking benefits and have a reasonably possibility of helping to substantiate the veteran's claim. Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In June 2018, the Veteran underwent a back conditions examination. There, he reported to the examiner that he filed for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) for, among other things, his back problems. Three years later, he testified before the Board that the Social Security Administration (SSA) awarded him disability benefits for his back pain. To date, those records have not been associated with the claims file, nor does it appear that an attempt has been made to obtain them. Because the Veteran's SSA records are likely to contain evidence relevant to the claim on appeal, remand is necessary to allow VA to request them and obtain a new medical opinion that considers them. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123 (2007) ("An opinion is adequate where it is based upon consideration of the veteran's prior medical history."). Finally, as the case is being remanded for additional development, any outstanding VA treatment records should be associated with the claims file. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992) (per curiam). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Obtain a copy of any decision to grant or deny SSA benefits to the Veteran and the medical records upon which that decision was based and associate them with the claims file. If the search for such records has negative results, the claims file must be properly documented as to the unavailability of those records. 3. Then, arrange for an appropriate healthcare provider to review the Veteran's claims file and provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's back disability had its clinical onset during service or is due to an event or incident of the Veteran's period of active service. In the opinion, the examiner must address the Veteran's contention that he continued to have back problems during and after service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinion. However, if there is a medical reason to doubt its veracity, the examiner should explain why the Veteran's statements or recollection are inconsistent with the evidence in this case, medical principles relating to the onset and progress of the disease, the specific findings in the record, and/or your professional judgment. If the reviewing health care provider finds that physical examination or telehealth interview of the Veteran and/or diagnostic testing is necessary, such should be accomplished. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Canedy, 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.