Citation Nr: 21071064 Decision Date: 11/29/21 Archive Date: 11/29/21 DOCKET NO. 16-42 995 DATE: November 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a lower/middle back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from November 1980 to October 1983. In July 2020, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, lower/middle back disorder, and a TDIU for additional evidentiary development. As a result of that development, the regional office issued a rating decision in October 2021 which awarded service connection for a left knee disorder. This award constitutes a full grant of the benefits on appeal as to this issue, and thus the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is fully resolved and is no longer before the Board. See A.B. v Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). Unfortunately, another remand is necessary for the remaining issues on appeal. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a lower/middle back disorder is remanded. In September 2021, the Veteran underwent a VA examination concerning his lower/middle back disorder claim. The examiner reviewed the claims file and provided a clinical evaluation prior to proffering a negative etiological opinion, finding that the Veteran's current lower/middle back disorder is less likely than not related to his active duty service. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a documented parachute accident during his active duty service that might have affected his back and other joint conditions, but he ultimately found that it did not because the accident had occurred over 40 years ago with no significant treatment immediately following separation. Thus, he found that the current disability was more likely due to the natural aging process. The Board finds that the opinion is inadequate. First, the examiner only addressed the in-service parachute accident; he did not address the three other instances of back pain documented in the Veteran's service treatment records. Second, the examiner impermissibly predicated his opinion primarily on a lack of treatment records since service without acknowledgment of the Veteran's lay statements concerning continuity of symptomatology since separation. As such, an addendum opinion must be obtained. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Veteran's claim for a TDIU is impacted by the outcome of his claim for service connection for a lower/middle back disorder. Therefore, the TDIU claim is inextricably intertwined with the service connection claim and must be remanded as well. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's lower/middle back disorder (diagnosed as lumbago, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, and intervertebral disc syndrome) is at least as likely as not related to his active duty service, to include documented in-service complaints of back pain, the Veteran's averments that he made 67 parachute jumps during service, and the in-service parachute accident in which he fell approximately 20 to 40 feet landing hard on his feet and left buttock. The examiner is also asked to consider the Veteran's lay statements concerning continuity of lower/middle back symptomatology since separation. A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. 2. After the above and any other indicated development is completed, readjudicate the issues of entitlement to service connection for a lower/middle back disorder and entitlement to a TDIU. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Bush 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.