Citation Nr: 21071810 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 15-24 635 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for status post bilateral hip arthroplasty is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral degenerative joint disease of the knees is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7101(a)(2). The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from October 1965 to October 1968. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California. These issues were previously before the Board in January 2019, where they were remanded for additional development. In October 2020, the Board issued a decision denying the Veteran's service connection claims currently on appeal. The Veteran appealed the Board's denial decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), resulting in the June 2021 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). In a June 2021 Order, CAVC granted the JMPR, thereby partially vacating the October 2020 Board decision, and remanding the issues for readjudication consistent with the JMPR. Regrettably, the Board finds that a remand is necessary prior to readjudication of the claim. As noted above, in June 2021, CAVC granted the JMPR based on the finding that the Board erred when it relied on the November 1995 and May 2011 VA examinations to deny the Veteran's claims in the October 2020 decision. Specifically, the JMPR agreed these examinations were inadequate under Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007), as the examiners failed to provide rationales that included support for their descriptions of the Veteran's in-service injury being "trivial" or "minor." See CAVC Decision, June 2021. Additionally, the examiners rationales implied that the Veteran does not have any current disabilities, which the JMPR noted to be in direct conflict with the Board's findings in the October 2020 decision of the Veteran having current diagnoses for all the disabilities on appeal. Id. Therefore, CAVC, by its grant of the JMPR, instructed that on remand the Board must provide the Veteran with an adequate medical opinion(s) to determine the current nature and etiology of her claimed conditions, noting that the examiners must take as fact that the Veteran has current disabilities and that she suffered an in-service injury when she fell down some stairs in 1995. As the record does not contain a new VA medical opinion(s) that adequately addresses the Veteran's claim, as directed by CAVC, the Board must find that a remand is necessary to obtain such opinion(s), prior to readjudication of the claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran to identify all medical providers (VA and private) from whom she has received treatment for her back, neck, bilateral hip, and bilateral knee conditions, and obtain any outstanding records and associate them with the Veteran's claims file. 2. After associating all newly acquired records with the claims file, provide the Veteran with addendum VA medical opinions to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed conditions. The entire claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner, and note review of the record in the examination report. Any indicated tests or studies should be performed, and all relevant evidence should be discussed. All pertinent medical complaints, symptoms, and clinical findings must be reported in detail. Following complete review of the record, the examiner must address the following: (a) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hip arthroplasty had its onset during any period of active duty, or is otherwise etiologically related to her active duty service, to include as due to her falling down some stairs in 1965 and/or any in-service complaints/treatment for her upper thighs and buttocks. Please note: the examiner must discuss the Veteran's reports of experiencing ongoing pain since separation from service. (b) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine had its onset during any period of active duty, or is otherwise etiologically related to her active duty service, to include as due to her falling down some stairs in 1965 and/or any in-service complaints/treatment for her back/thoracic area. Please note: the examiner must discuss the Veteran's reports of experiencing ongoing pain since separation from service. (c) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine had its onset during any period of active duty, or is otherwise etiologically related to her active duty service, to include as due to her falling down some stairs in 1965 and/or any in-service complaints/treatment for her back/thoracic area. Please note: the examiner must discuss the Veteran's reports of experiencing ongoing pain since separation from service. (d) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral degenerative joint disease of the knees had its onset during any period of active duty, or is otherwise etiologically related to her active duty service, to include as due to her falling down some stairs in 1965 and/or any in-service complaints/treatment for her thighs and legs. Please note: the examiner must discuss the Veteran's reports of experiencing ongoing pain since separation from service. (e) Any opinion should include a detailed rationale. The examiner should consider the entire claims file, and discuss the Veteran's lay statements regarding the nature, onset, and chronicity of symptoms. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, and that her reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinion. (f) If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rational for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resorting to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Carter, 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.