Citation Nr: 21005468 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 13-18 108 DATE: February 1, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a low back disorder. REASONS FOR REMAND In March 2020, the Board remanded the claim on appeal for further development in accordance with a November 2019 Joint Motion for Remand granted by the Veterans Claims Court. In so doing, the Board requested an updated examination that opined as to the etiology of the Veteran’s low back disorder and specifically addressed March 2013 and August 2014 private medical opinions provided by Dr. K.G., as well as the findings of a June 2014 disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) performed by Dr. T.G. In November 2020, the Veteran was afforded a new VA examination and described how while in service, he trained every day with 80 lb packs, jumped out of helicopters, and went on runs and long hikes. The Veteran said that he experienced pain in his lower back, especially in the early morning, was diagnosed with a strained muscle that was treated with medication, but that the pain kept coming back. The examiner diagnosed degenerative disc disease (DDD) and spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine but opined that it was less likely than not that the low back disorder was incurred in or caused by his claimed in-service injury. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s entrance and separation examinations were negative for back conditions and observed that a private clinician reported in a March 2013 private medical opinion that he first treated with the clinician for back pain and a herniation in 2005, seven years after his separation from service. However, the examiner did not address the June 2014 DBQ performed by Dr. T.G., Dr. K.G.’s August 2014 private medical opinion, or the Veteran’s description of his in-service back pain. As such, regrettably, further development is again required to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s low back disorder. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records not already of record, to specifically include those from Drs. K.G. and T.G., and associate them with the claims file. All attempts to obtain the treatment records should be fully documented and a negative response should be provided if records do not exist or are not available or if authorization to request the documentation is not received. 2. Direct the claims file to a clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s low back disorder. The claims file must be made available to the clinician. Based on a review of the record, the clinician is asked to opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s low back disorder is etiologically related to service. In forming the opinion, the examiner must specifically consider: (1) the March 2013 and August 2014 private medical opinions provided by Dr. K.G., (2) the findings of a June 2014 DBQ performed by Dr. T.G., and (3) the lay statements and testimony submitted by the Veteran, to include those made in his November 2020 VA examination, describing his in-service back symptomatology. The examiner must also consider the medical journal article submitted by the Veteran addressing the relationship between low back pain and service. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Spigelman, 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.