Citation Nr: 21076069 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 14-38 741 DATE: December 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left hand tremors, to include as secondary to a neck disability, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from October 1980 to October 1992 and from January 2008 to September 2008. He had additional periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (IDT). These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in April 2010. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in May 2018 for further evidentiary development. In April 2020, the Board denied service connection for a neck disability and for left hand tremors. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In July 2021, the Court granted a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR) submitted by the parties, vacating and remanding the Board's decision with regard to the issues of service connection for a neck disability and left hand tremors. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left hand tremors, to include as secondary to a neck disability, is remanded. The Court vacated the Board's April 2020 decision because it relied on inadequate medical opinions issued in August 2014 and September 2019. Specifically, the examiners both indicated that the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for a neck injury during service. However, neither examiner discussed treatment records from April and May 2008 showing that he underwent physical therapy for mild stiffness and decreased range of motion in his neck during his second period of active duty service. Accordingly, a remand is necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion that accounts for these treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum medical opinion from the examiner who issued the September 2019 VA medical opinion or, if that examiner is unavailable then another similarly qualified examiner may respond instead. The entire claims folder, including a copy of this remand, must be made available for review by the examiner, and such review should be noted in the examination report. A new VA examination is only necessary if deemed so by the examiner. After reviewing the evidence, the examiner is asked to respond to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's neck disability was incurred during a period of active duty service, active duty for training (ACDUTRA) inactive duty training (IDT), and/or active duty for special work, or is otherwise etiologically related to such service? (b.) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's neck disability was incurred during a period of active duty service, active duty for training (ACDUTRA) inactive duty training (IDT), and/or active duty for special work, or is otherwise etiologically related to such service? (c.) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left hand tremor disability was caused or aggravated beyond its natural progression by his neck disability? (Continued on the next page) The examiner must provide a comprehensive rationale for each proffered opinion. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports are to be considered in formulating any opinion. If any opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training. As appropriate, the AOJ should conduct additional development or supplement the record. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Pratt 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.