Citation Nr: 21071828 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-00 713 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition, to include surgical scar, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity cervical radiculopathy, to include as secondary to neck condition, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity cervical radiculopathy, to include as secondary to neck condition, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Veteran had active military service from April 1991 to January 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the March 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition, to include surgical scar, is remanded. The Veteran contends that her neck condition is related to her military service. Throughout the record, the Veteran has stated that during her military service she was involved in a motor vehicle accident where she injured her back and neck. Specifically, in an August 2020 statement, the Veteran noted that immediately following the accident she complained of severe back and neck pain. However, her neck pain was written off as whiplash with little to no testing and no follow up. The Veteran stated that she had daily neck stiffness and pain and was under the impression it was a residual from the whiplash. The Veteran was unaware she could claim this injury as connected to her military service and therefore did not seek entitlement for many years post service. Pursuant to a previous remand, an addendum medical opinion was obtained in January 2020. However, the examiner heavily relied on the absence of complaints or treatment for a neck condition as the basis for the negative nexus opinion. Additionally, it does not appear that the examiner considered the Veteran's lay statements that she continued to have neck pain since her in-service motor vehicle accident. Additionally, the claims file contains a December 2016 private medical record that states that the Veteran's lumbar condition (which is currently service connected) and cervical conditions are connected "in the sense that she [the Veteran] had such bad lumbar pain it was masking her cervical pain, which is also most likely a result of the injury she sustained as there are signs of that on the MRI and imaging that we had seen in the past." Although the January 2020 examiner references this treatment record, it does not appear that the examiner considered this positive nexus opinion in offering the opinion given. Therefore, the Board finds that an addendum opinion should be obtained to ensure that the Veteran's lay statements and the December 2016 treatment record are considered in the VA opinion. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity cervical radiculopathy, to include as secondary to neck condition, is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity cervical radiculopathy, to include as secondary to neck condition, The Veteran contends that her radiculopathy in the bilateral upper extremities is caused by her neck condition. As the resolution of the claim for service connection for a neck condition is determinative of the radiculopathy in the bilateral upper extremities claim, the issues are inextricably intertwined, and the radiculopathy issues must also be remanded. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11, 20 (1998); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion by the same clinician that provided the January 2020 opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's neck condition. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's cervical spine condition is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including her in-service motor vehicle accident. The examiner must consider the Veteran's lay statements that she experienced severe neck pain following her in-service-accident. The examiner must also consider the private December 2016 medical treatment record linking the Veteran's cervical spine disability to her military service. The examiner should also provide an opinion as to whether a current cervical spine disorder was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability, to include degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. The examiner should not rely solely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran's service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's radiculopathy in the bilateral upper extremities. The examiner must answer the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or higher probability) that the Veteran's radiculopathy in the bilateral upper extremities, was caused by the Veteran's cervical spine disability? a) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or higher probability) that the Veteran's radiculopathy in the bilateral upper extremities, was aggravated by the Veteran's cervical spine disability? All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. The examiner should not rely on the absence of evidence of in-service treatment or injury in the Veteran's service treatment records as a basis for any given opinion. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 3. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.