Citation Nr: 21071141 Decision Date: 11/29/21 Archive Date: 11/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-01 499 DATE: November 29, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a low back strain is remanded. Service connection for a left hand strain is remanded. Service connection for a right shoulder strain is remanded. Service connection for a left shoulder strain is remanded. Service connection for a neck strain is remanded. Service connection for a left ankle strain is remanded. Service connection for a left foot condition is remanded. Service connection for a left leg/thigh condition is remanded. Service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Service connection for a head injury is remanded. Service connection for a left arm condition is remanded. Service connection for a right hand condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1979 to May 1983 with an additional period of service in the New York Army National Guard. This matter is on appeal from a November 2016 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a November 2021 Board hearing. The issues pertaining to service connection for a low back strain, left hand strain, right and left shoulder strain, neck strain, and a left ankle strain are remanded for a new medical opinion. It is the Veteran's contention that he sustained injuries to his neck, back, shoulders, left ankle, and left hand as a result of in-service accident. During his period of active duty, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in January 1980, when the driver lost control of the vehicle and went off road. The vehicle flipped twice and ended up wedged under a mobile home. See April 2019 Correspondence. The Veteran also testified that he injured his left hand during a practice session of hand-to-hand combat with another Marine. He recalled going to sick call for treatment immediately afterwards and was placed on light duty. He asserts that the injuries sustained remained chronic and current since he continued to seek treatment even after 1983. The Board notes that while the Veteran has asserted that his in-service injuries persisted after his separation from active duty in 1983, no physical abnormalities or residuals of injuries relating to his back, neck, ankle, shoulders, or hand were noted in his enlistment examination for the New York Army National Guard. Based on his report of medical history, the Veteran denied any problems and specifically indicated that he was in good health. The Veteran testified that his back pain worsened during this Army National Guard service and he was discharged when the pain became too much. The record currently contains November 2021 private medical opinion finding a positive nexus between the Veteran's service and his current low back strain, left-hand strain, right and left shoulder strain, neck strain, and a left ankle strain. However, the Board finds that the opinion is inadequate as the physician failed to offer adequate rationale to support her conclusion. In her November 2021 letter, the physician merely concluded that the Veteran's current disabilities were caused by his motor vehicle accident and league basketball game in 1980, evidenced by service treatment records. At his Board hearing, the Veteran testified that after his motor vehicle accident, he did not play basketball because he was too injured to play. However, the November 2021 private treatment report contradicted the Veteran's statements in finding that his current disabilities also resulted from basketball games in/about May 1980 to September 1982. The Veteran's service treatment records from what appear to be his period of active service are illegible due to faulty scanning. Additionally, the Board notes that while the Veteran's entrance examination report for the Veteran's New York Army National Guard is in the claims file, a copy of his separation examination is not part of the record. Therefore, upon remand, legible copies of the Veteran's complete and legible service treatment records from his periods of service on active duty and in the New York Army National Guard should be obtained and uploaded to the claims file. Then, new and adequate medical opinions should be obtained. The issues of service connection for a left foot condition, left leg condition, left knee disability, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, a left arm condition, a head injury, and a right hand condition are also remanded. Pursuant to the November 2016 rating decision, the Veteran filed a timely Notice of Disagreement in July 2017, which included these issues. However, to date, the AOJ has not issued a Statement of Case (SOC). Therefore, the Board will remand the claims for issuance of an SOC. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Re-scan the Veteran's STRs from his active service in the U.S. Marine Corps into the Veteran's claims file, as the existing copies are illegible. If a legible copy of the Veteran's STRs cannot be associated with the Veteran's claims file, a notation to that effect should be inserted into the record. The Veteran should be notified of the unavailability/illegibility of these records and provided an opportunity to submit them or alternative evidence. 2. Undertake appropriate action to attempt to obtain copies of any missing STRs from the Veteran's service in the New York Army National Guard, to include any separation examination report at the time of the Veteran's separation in March 1985. 3. After Step 1 and 2 are completed, obtain a new medical opinion for the Veteran's service connection claims for his low back strain, left hand strain, right shoulder strain, left shoulder strain, neck strain, and his left ankle strain. Following a thorough review of the Veteran's claims file, to include medical and lay evidence, the examiner is asked to determine the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current low back strain had onset in service or is otherwise related to his service? Why or why not? (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current left hand strain had onset in service or is otherwise related to his service? Why or why not? (c.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current right hand had onset in service or is otherwise related to his service? Why or why not? (d.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current right shoulder and left shoulder had onset in service or is otherwise related to his service? Why or why not? (e.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current neck strain had onset in service or is otherwise related to his service? Why or why not? (f.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's current left ankle had onset in service or is otherwise related to his service? Why or why not? The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he/she should so state and should provide adequate explanation. 4. Issue an SOC regarding the service connection claims for a left foot condition, left leg condition, left knee disability, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, a left arm condition, a head injury, and a right-hand condition. Only if the Veteran perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9, the issues of service connection claims for a left foot condition, left leg condition, left knee disability, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, a left arm condition, a head injury, and a right-hand condition should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. 5. Upon completion of the above, readjudicate the service connection claims for his low back strain, left hand strain, right shoulder strain, left shoulder strain, neck strain, and his left ankle strain. If the benefits sought remain denied, the Veteran should be provided with a Supplemental SOC. The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Yeh, 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.